RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03294
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 Apr 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under  Other  than  Honorable  Conditions)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It appears the applicant is basing his request on the fact it has been
more than 15 years since he was discharged and believes his  discharge
should now be upgraded.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 15  Jun  70  and
was promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).  On 10  Feb
89, his squadron  commander  notified  him  he  was  recommending  his
discharge from the  Air  Force  due  to  his  conviction  by  civilian
authorities on 12 Jan 89 for sexual abuse of a minor.   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt on 10 Feb 89.  On 22 Feb 89, after the  applicant
had consulted counsel, he notified his commander he did not waive  his
right to a hearing before an administrative discharge  board  and  was
not submitting statements in his behalf.  He  also  acknowledged  that
the separation authority would determine  the  type  of  discharge  he
would receive, and that regardless of his commander’s  recommendation,
he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He also
indicated he understood if his discharge was approved, he was entitled
to lengthy service consideration.

On 10 Apr 89, the applicant’s squadron commander executed an  addendum
to the original letter of notification and advised the applicant  that
in addition to the reasons indicated in the letter of notification  of
10 Feb 89, he was also  recommending  the  applicant’s  discharge  for
commission of a serious offense, sexual deviation (indecent  act  with
or assault upon a child under the age  of  16).   The  commander  also
notified the applicant he was recommending he receive  an  under  than
honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on
10 Apr 89 and indicated his understanding and  that  military  counsel
had been made available to assist him.

On 10 Apr 89, the squadron commander recommended to the wing commander
the applicant be discharged for the reasons indicated  above  with  an
under than honorable conditions discharge.  On    23 May 89, the  wing
commander directed that an administrative discharge board be  convened
to review matters in the applicant’s case.  On 1 Jun 89, the board was
convened and made the following recommendations:

        a.  The applicant be discharged from the Air Force.

        b.  The applicant’s service be characterized as general.

        c.  The applicant be denied probation and rehabilitation.

Soon after the findings and recommendations of  the  discharge  board,
evidence came to light that indicated the applicant had stolen a large
quantity of government property.  The applicant’s discharge processing
was held in abeyance while the case was investigated by the Office  of
Special Investigations (OSI).  As a result of the  investigation,  the
applicant was tried by special court-martial on 12 Oct 89 and  pleaded
guilty to theft of government property  and  wrongful  disposition  of
government property.  The applicant was reduced to the grade of airman
first class (A1C) (E-3), approved for forfeiture of  $570.00  pay  per
month for six months, and confinement for four months.  The  discharge
processing was continued after the applicant served his sentence.   On
27 Feb 90, the applicant’s case was forwarded through channels by  the
wing commander to the Secretary of the Air Force for  lengthy  service
review.  The  commander  recommended  the  applicant  not  be  granted
lengthy service probation.  On     30 May 90,  the  SECAF  denied  the
applicant lengthy service probation and directed that his discharge be
executed.  The applicant was discharged on 8 Jun 90 in  the  grade  of
A1C for misconduct—civilian conviction with a general (under honorable
conditions) character of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the
documentation on file in the master personnel  record,  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
23 Nov 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

FBI REPORT:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI  provided  a  record  of  the
applicant’s arrest record.  No additional arrests besides  the  arrest
in  1989  which  led  to  the  applicant’s   discharge   were   noted.
Consequently, the report was not forwarded to the applicant.

The complete report is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03294 in Executive Session on 11 January 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Nov 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 05.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair