RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01526
            INDEX CODE:  100.06, 110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2007

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty  Item
26 (Separation Code) and 27 (Reenlistment Eligibility Code), be changed  to
indicate “honorable service.”

He also requests that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), be changed
to reflect “Request for Discharge – For the Convenience of the  Government”
or a similar statement.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Hiring institutions are now demanding the member’s copy of  the    DD  Form
214, which  at  one  time  was  considered  private  and  confidential.   A
statement conducive to honorable service corrects this issue.

Applicant believes a more appropriate response can be stated for  honorable
service.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his       DD  Form
214.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 86, for a period  of
six years in the grade of SSgt.

On 28 Sep  89,  charges  were  preferred  against  the  applicant  for  the
following specifications:

            a.  On or about 9 Nov 88,  applicant  stole  a  Trygon  Voltage
Meter, valued  less  than  $100.00,  the  property  of  the  United  States
government.

            b.  On or about 13 Dec 88, applicant stole  a  Hewlett  Packard
signal  generator,  two  Hewlett  Packard  multimeters  and  one   spectrum
analyzer, valued at more than $100.00, the property of  the  United  States
government.

            c.  On or about 16 Dec 88,  applicant  stole  one  Kepko  black
metal box, a power supply, one General Electric motor  (1/2  horse  power),
one Leeson electric motor  (1/2  horse  power),  a  North  regulated  power
supply, one metal tray with three Sorenson power suppliers and ten Motorola
MICOR two-way radios, valued at more than  $100.00,  the  property  of  the
United States government.

On 8 Nov 89, after consulting with legal  counsel,  applicant  submitted  a
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-  martial.   He  understood
the elements of the offenses he was charged with and that  if  his  request
for discharge was approved he may receive an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

Headquarters 23rd Air Force and the base legal office reviewed the case and
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of  trial  by  court-martial  and
recommended applicant receive an  under  other  than  honorable  conditions
(UOTHC)  discharge.   On  14  Dec  89,  the  discharge  authority  approved
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of  trial  by  court-martial  and
directed that applicant be discharged with an under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 22 Dec 89, in the grade of sergeant, under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, Request for discharge in lieu of  trial
by court-martial, with an under other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge.  He served on active duty for a period of 13  years,  6  months,
and 9 days.

On 1 Dec 01, applicant applied to the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB)  requesting  his  UOTHC  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an  honorable
discharge.  After review of the evidence of  record,  the  AFDRB  concluded
that the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the  discretion  of
the  discharge  authority  and  that  the  applicant  was   provided   full
administrative due process.  However, the Board concluded that the  overall
quality of the applicant’s service was  more  accurately  reflected  by  an
under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   Therefore,  applicant’s
characterization for discharge was changed to an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge and he was issued a new  DD  Form  214,  reflecting  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C.

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 15 Jun 06, the  Federal  Bureau  of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 21 Jun 06, that, on  the  basis
of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part,  based
on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge
was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  The discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.

The applicant did not  submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFDRB previously reviewed all  the  evidence  of  record  and  upgraded
applicant’s discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge,
but denied his request for an honorable discharge.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s intent with this action is to modify or change  the  “Narrative
Reason for Discharge,” to reflect a statement such as “For the  Convenience
of the Government.”

The equipment in question  was  not  the  property  of  the  United  States
government.  It belonged to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing  Office
(DRMO) facility, which turned it  over  to  him.   DRMO  was  not  pressing
charges.

He did not require the permission of his  Commander  to  construct  a  Navy
Military Affiliate Radio Station (MARS); he  already  had  permission  from
Navy MARS to construct a station at his residence.  He simply  offered  the
courtesy to the AF base through his commander to construct the  station  on
base.  His commander denied his request,  so  he  proceeded  to  build  the
station at his residence.  This infuriated his commander,  but  was  not  a
crime.

All the equipment obtained was for the MARS service.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s contentions are  duly  noted;
however, the Board did not find his arguments  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  They noted the Air Force
Discharge Review Board previously reviewed all the evidence of  record  and
upgraded  applicant’s  discharge  from  an  under  other   than   honorable
conditions discharge to an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.
The Board also noted no evidence has been presented which would  lead  them
to believe his service characterization was improper or that his  narrative
reason for separation should be changed.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  adopts  the  rationale
provided by the Air  Force  as  the  basis  for  its  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice  and  concludes
that no basis exists to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-01526
in Executive Session on 25 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record.
    Exhibit D.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 May 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jul 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair