RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02180
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 JAN 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counseling given to him was not in person and all of  the  evidence
was not explained to him.  Furthermore, the recommendation that  he
accept the UOTHC was not in his best interest.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal  statement
and papers relative to his discharge

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 June 1980 in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.   Applicant
was separated from the Air  Force  on  27  August  1984  under  the
provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administration  Separation  of  Airman
(request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with  an
UOTHC discharge.

On 14 June 1984, court-martial charges were preferred  against  the
applicant for the following specifications:

   1) During the period 11 Mar  83  and  22  Apr  83,  he  stole  a
      Panasonic Model PV  1780  videocassette  recorder  valued  in
      excess of $100.00.
   2) During the period from 3 Mar 83 and 31 May  83,  he  stole  a
      Teac Stereo Port studio valued in excess of $100.00.
   3) During the period from 29 Nov 82 and 28 Mar 83,  he  stole  a
      Nakamichi stereo cassette deck valued in excess of $100.00.
   4) On or about 1 Aug  83  until  on  or  about  28  Nov  83,  he
      unlawfully concealed a Panasonic Model PV 1780  videocassette
      recorder valued in excess of $100.00.
   5) On or about 17 Nov  83  until  on  or  about  28  Nov  83  he
      unlawfully concealed a Teac  Stereo  Port  studio  valued  in
      excess of $100.00.
   6) On or about 17 Nov  83  until  on  or  about  28  Nov  83  he
      unlawfully concealed a Nakamichi stereo cassette deck  valued
      in excess of $100.00.
   7) On 5 Dec 83, applicant received an Article  15  for  wrongful
      possession of marijuana.  For his misconduct, he was  reduced
      to the grade of airman first class  and  ordered  to  forfeit
      $250 per month for two months.


On 6 Aug 84, after consulting with counsel, applicant requested  to
be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He understood  if
his request was approved he may receive a UOTHC discharge.

The  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s  request  for
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be
discharged  with  a   UOTHC   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

On 27 Aug 84, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in
lieu of Trial  by  Court-Martial,  with  service  characterized  as
UOTHC.  He was credited with 4 years, 2  months,  and  12  days  of
active duty service.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 8 June 2006,  that,  on
the basis of data furnished, they are unable to  locate  an  arrest
record (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.  He provided  no  facts  warranting  a  change  in  his
character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial of the application.  JA  indicates  in
light of the nonjudicial punishment for possession of 14.5 grams of
marijuana he received in December 1983,  the  applicant  could  not
rely upon a record of good military service for a use at his court-
martial 22 years ago.  Nor  can  the  applicant  now  rely  on  his
service record to justify an Honorable characterization of service.
The applicant averted the possibility of  punishment  (bad  conduct
discharge, rank reduction, forfeiture  of  pay)  and  received  the
benefit of an administrative discharge with a characterization that
properly  characterized  his  service  even  before  charges   were
preferred.  JA recommends denial of the  application  as  untimely.
In addition, on the merits, the applicant has failed to  prove  any
error or injustice warranting the relief requested.

HQ AFPC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicates that it was never brought to his attention that
the court-martial charges were never preferred against him and  the
specifications listed was never found in  his  possession.   At  no
time had he been in possession of  the  merchandise  listed.   When
this incident occurred, he was already separated.

In regard to the drug charges,  he  was  given  a  urine  test  and
passed.  He still feels that his discharge  was  a  miscarriage  of
justice.

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.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing  directives  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  In addition, based on his  overall
record of service and the limited documentation related to his post-
service activities and accomplishments, we are not  persuaded  that
an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-02180 in Executive Session on 4  October  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 18 Aug 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, FBI Report, dated 13 Sep 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Sep 06.




                                   Christopher D. Carey
                                   Panel Chair