RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03608
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 MAY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has never fully recovered from this injustice.   He  was  young  and  let
people with higher rank intimidate him.

He was prejudiced against due to a  prior  court-martial  in  which  he  was
found guilty of stealing from his roommate.

While serving confinement he was verbally assaulted by an officer  who  told
him that he would “get him” one way or the other and if he  did  not  change
his story that he would have  him  kicked  out  of  the  Air  Force  with  a
dishonorable discharge.

In support of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  personal  statement,
documents pertaining to his Motion To Dismiss, and a copy  of  a  Letter  of
Reprimand.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 Sep 89,  for  a  period  of
four years in the grade  of  airman  basic.   His  highest  grade  held  was
airman.

Applicant was tried and convicted by a general court-martial on 18  Jan  91,
for theft of money from another airman.  He  was  sentenced  to  confinement
for 60 days, forfeiture of  $200.00  pay  per  month  for  six  months,  and
reduction to the grade of airman basic.

On 30 Aug 91, special  court-martial  charges  were  preferred  against  the
applicant based on the following:  On or about 9  Jul  90  and  24  Aug  90,
applicant stole one 1936 Buffalo nickel and one 1942  Liberty  Walking  Half
Dollar, property of another airman.

On 3 Sep  91,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  the  applicant  requested
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He  understood  that  if  his
request was  approved  he  could  receive  a  discharge  under  other  than
honorable conditions.

On 4 Sep 91, applicant’s squadron commander  recommended  his  request  for
discharge be  approved  and  recommended  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions discharge.  The commander cited in  light  of  the  cost  for  a
second court-martial versus the nominal charges, approval of his request is
in the best interest of the Air Force.

On 4 Sep 91, the Staff Judge  Advocate  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally  sufficient  to  support  separation  and  recommended  applicant’s
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved and  he
be discharged  with  an  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge.  On 6 Sep 91, the discharge authority approved the discharge and
directed applicant be separated with a UOTHC.

On 11 Sep 91, applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFR  39-10,
by reason of request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial,  with
an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He served 1  year,  10
months, and 18 days of active military service.

On 24 Jun 96, applicant applied to the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable 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.  The Board  further  concluded  that  there
exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and  applicant’s
discharge should not be changed.  A copy of  the  AFDRB  Hearing  Record  is
attached at Exhibit C.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request  on  8  Jan  07,  the  Federal  Bureau  of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 9 Jan  07,  that,  on
the basis of data furnished, they are unable  to  locate  an  arrest  record
(Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   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.   Additionally,  the
applicant provided no facts warranting a change  to  his  under  other  than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

A copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


On 12 Jan 07, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,  a  response  has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, the discharge appears  to  be  in  compliance  with  the
governing regulations in effect at the time  and  we  find  no  evidence  to
indicate  that  the  applicant’s  separation  from   the   Air   Force   was
inappropriate.  The only other basis upon which to consider upgrade  of  his
discharge would be clemency.  However, the applicant has  not  provided  any
information pertaining to his post-service  activities  and  accomplishments
for us to consider  an  upgrade  on  the  basis  of  clemency.   Should  the
applicant  provide  statements  from  community  leaders  and  acquaintances
attesting to applicant’s good character and reputation  and  other  evidence
of  successful  post-service  accomplishments  we  would   be   willing   to
reconsider his appeal.  In the absence of such  evidence,  favorable  action
in not recommended.  Therefore, based on the available evidence  of  record,
we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-
03608 in Executive Session on 27 February 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
03608 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record.
      Exhibit D.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.




                                             KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                             Panel Chair