RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00260
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served faithfully for ten years and had an isolated incident. He  sought
medical attention and continues to do so.  He  received  multiple  service-
connected injuries not related to  the  incident  and  is  seeking  medical
attention and compensation from the Department of  Veterans  Administration
(DVA)

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his  DVA  rating
decision.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 April 1986.
On 26 October 1994 he was charged for violating Article 130,  Uniform  Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), with two specifications of unlawfully  entering
certain dormitory rooms not assigned to him with the  intent  to  commit  a
criminal offense of obtaining telephone services under false pretenses.

He  was  also  charged  for  violating  Article   134,   UCMJ,   with   six
specifications of falsely pretending to various telephone  businesses  that
he was authorized to use other individuals telephone  accounts  and  credit
cards, knowing that those pretenses were  false  and  wrongfully  obtaining
telephone  services  worth  approximately  $1,569.89  through  those  false
pretenses.

On 16 February 1995, the charges were referred to trial by  general  court-
martial by the convening authority.

On 3 March 1995 he initiated a request for discharge in lieu  of  trial  by
court martial.  After consulting with legal counsel,  he  acknowledged  his
rights,  privileges  and  possible  effects  of  the  discharge  under  the
circumstances.  In addition, he understood  he  may  be  discharged  UOTHC,
regardless of the recommendation.  He was aware of the  adverse  nature  of
such a discharge, the possible consequences thereof and that it may deprive
him of DVA benefits.

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient  to
support separation and recommended he be separated from the service with  a
UOTHC discharge.

On 10 March 1995, the  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed he be separated with an UOTHC discharge.

He was discharged in the grade of staff sergeant  on  31  March  1995.   He
served 8 years, 11 months, and 29 days on active duty

He submitted an  application  to  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB).  On 20 September 1996, the  AFDRB  reviewed  his  application  and
concluded no change in his discharge was warranted.

On 4 April 2008, a request for information pertaining  to  his  post-service
activities was forwarded to  the  applicant  for  response  within  30  days
(Exhibit D).  In response to our request,  applicant  provided  post-service
information, which is attached at Exhibit G.

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends  denial.   DPSOS  states  although  his  commander
recommended a general  discharge,  the  convening  authority  appropriately
approved the UOTHC discharge, as was within his authority.   By  doing  so,
the  convening  authority  recognized  the  applicant's  actions   were   a
significant departure from the acceptable personal conduct and  performance
of duty expected of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).   It  also  recognized
that this was not an isolated incident, but rather a course of conduct over
six months that resulted in eight different  specifications  of  wrongdoing
being brought against him.   He  is  now  trying  to  receive  DVA  medical
benefits, which are being denied by the DVA due to the characterization  of
his discharge.  Specifically, the period of service in which the  applicant
was discharged, 12 January 1990 to 31 March 1995, has been determined to be
dishonorable for DVA purposes.  DPSOS states the discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of   the   discharge
regulation.  The discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge
authority.  He did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  He provided no facts
warranting an upgrade of his character of service.

The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating since he has been discharged  from  the  Air
Force  he's  maintained  gainful  employment  working  within  the   federal
government as a  contractor  and  presently  as  a  civil  servant.   He  is
attempting to get his character of discharge  upgraded  strictly  to  obtain
benefits through the DVA. He has enclosed letters from coworkers and  others
he has worked for in the past.  He  also  provided  copies  of  his  current
resume with the training courses he attended during his career.

His complete response is attached 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 an error or injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, we found no indication the actions taken to  affect  his
discharge and characterization of his service  were  improper,  contrary  to
the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or  based
on factors other  than  his  own  behavior  and  inability  to  comply  with
standards.  Therefore, 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.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of  clemency.   We  have  considered  the
applicant's overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge and available evidence related to his post-service activities  and
accomplishments.  We do not believe  that  clemency  is  warranted  at  this
time.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of  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-2008-
00260 in Executive Session on 15 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms.  Janet I. Hassan, Member
            Mr. James G. Neighbors

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 January 2007, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 7 April 2008.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 April 2008, w/atch.
      Exhibit E.   Letter,  AFPC/DPSOS,  dated  27  February  2008,
w/atch.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 March 2008.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 April 2008.





                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair