RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00794
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  (UOTHC)  be
upgraded to an honorable discharge so he can complete three years of active
service and retire.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a letter written to his congressman, applicant contends that the  person
responsible for thrusting his case to a court martial  was  discharged  and
diagnosed with a bipolar disorder.  She also accused three  other  military
members of the same act.  She  had  two  of  her  friends  concoct  similar
complaints.  All three of these  individuals  shared  the  same  class  and
instructor.  This instructor was well liked by the mostly  caucasian  upper
management and it showed.  This instructor allegedly had sex with a student
but was never disciplined.  At the time of these accusations he was wearing
a cast and was in no shape to assault anyone.  He is the  proud  father  of
four daughters and would never do anything to harm a  female.   His  sister
was raped and murdered at the age of 13.

In support of his request, the applicant  submits  documentation  extracted
from his military personnel and medical records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

While serving  in  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  as  a  category  B,
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA),  the  applicant  allegedly  sought
personal relationships with two trainees  in  violation  of  the  command’s
instructions on professional  and  unprofessional  relationships,  sometime
between October 2003 and January 2004,

Between December 2003 and February 2004, he  allegedly  engaged  in  sexual
intercourse with a different trainee.

On 1 July 2005, he was  involuntarily  extended  on  active  duty  for  the
purpose of disciplinary action.
On 4 October 2005, he was punished  under  Article  15,  of  the  UCMJ  for
violation of Article 92, for failing to comply with the  command  given  by
the gate guard  to  park  his  car.   Punishment  imposed  consisted  of  a
suspended reduction to the grade of staff sergeant.

On 22 February  2006,  court-martial  proceedings  for  the  unprofessional
relationship charges began.  However, his counsel argued that his right  to
a speedy trial was denied  and  the  charges  were  subsequently  dismissed
without prejudice.

On 24 February 2006, he was again charged and scheduled for trial beginning
on 4 April 2006.  On that same date, he  requested  discharge  in  lieu  of
trial by court martial.

On 14 March 2006, he received another Article 15 for violation  of  Article
86, for being absent without authority from  13 through  16 February  2006.
As a result, the suspended reduction imposed on 4 October 2006 was  vacated
and he was reduced to the grade of staff sergeant with a date  of  rank  of
4 October 2005.

On 21 March 2006,  his  request  for  discharge  was  approved.    He   was
discharged 26 March 2006 with service characterized as UOTHC.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.   JAJM  states  airmen  facing  court-martial
where a punitive discharge is authorized may request discharge rather  than
face trial by court-martial.  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen provides that airmen applying for discharge  in  lieu  of  trial  by
court-martial  must  acknowledge  understanding  of  the  elements  of  the
offenses charged, the fact that characterization of  service  as  UOTHC  is
authorized, the adverse nature of such a characterization and the  possible
consequences.  He was advised of his rights and consequences of  requesting
a discharge in lieu of court-martial, given the opportunity to  review  the
evidence against  him,  and  consulted  counsel  prior  to  submitting  his
discharge request.  At the time of his request, he was well  aware  of  the
charges he was facing, the evidence against him, and the available  avenues
of defense.  Knowing this information was available  for  his  defense,  he
still affirmatively pursued administrative separation, with  the  knowledge
that UOTHC was the likely result, rather than face trial  by  court-martial
where the government would have had the burden of proving the  elements  of
each offense beyond a reasonable  doubt.   The  information  regarding  the
alleged mental health of one accuser was available to him at the  time  the
charges  were  preferred.   He  provides  no  substantive   or   procedural
justification to modify his discharge characterization.  He voluntarily and
willingly opted not to  face  court-martial,  but  he  determined  that  an
administrative discharge, with  the  likely  characterization  of  a  UOTHC
discharge was in his best interest.
The complete JAJM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  4
April 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 instructions  in  effect  at  the  time,  or
based on factors other than his own behavior  and  failure  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.

________________________________________________________________

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-
00794 in Executive Session on 25 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr.  Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
                 Ms.  Barbara J. Barger, Member
                 Mr.  Reginald P. Howard, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2008-00794 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, not dated, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 March 2008, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 April 2008.




                                   JOSEPH D. YOUNT
                                   Panel Chair