RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01799
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to
honorable and he receive separation pay.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force should bear some responsibility for the way  it  handled
his case.  They did not allow him to accept a second  job,  failed  to
give him the expedient discharge  and  the  separation  pay  after  he
waived his right to a board, and then put misconduct on  his  DD  Form
214 so that no one would hire him.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statements,  a
letter from his  senator,  and  a  statement  from  a  retired  master
sergeant.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9  March  1992,  for  a
period of six years.  The applicant was notified by his  commander  on
15 November 1996 that he was  recommending  his  discharge  for  minor
disciplinary infractions.  The commander advised his reason  for  this
action being taken was:  (1) From on or  about            6  September
1996 and on or about 1 October 1996, he, being indebted to his  Credit
Incorporated in the sum of $81.16, dishonorably  failed  to  pay  such
debt.  For this action, he was give Article  15  action.   (2)  On  or
about 24 September 1996, he did,  without  authority,  absent  himself
from his appointed place of duty and did remain  so  absent  for  2  ½
hours.  For this action he was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  (3)
Between on or about 18 July 1996 and on or about  1  August  1996,  he
failed to obey a lawful regulation by wrongfully  using  his  American
Express Government Travel Charge card to incur  financial  obligations
for other than official  government  business.   For  this  action  he
received a LOR; and (4) On or about 7 January 1996, 21 March 1996,  27
March 1996, 7 June 1996, 9 June 1996 and 13 August 1996, he  submitted
a total of seven checks to the Army Air Force Exchange  Service  which
were returned due to insufficient funds.  For  these  actions  he  was
given a Letter of Counseling.  On       15  November  1996,  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the recommended action and that he  understood
approval of the recommendation for his discharge could  result  in  an
under other  than  honorable  conditions  separation.   The  commander
further advised he had the right to consult counsel, present his  case
to an administrative discharge board, be represented by legal  counsel
at a board hearing, submit statements in his own  behalf  in  addition
to, or in lieu of, the  board  hearing  or  waive  the  above  rights.
However, he must consult legal counsel before  making  a  decision  to
waive any of his rights.  On 3 December 1996, applicant  advised  that
military counsel had been made available to him and that he waived his
right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board.   He  did
not submit statements in his own  behalf  and  indicated  he  did  not
desire lengthy service probation consideration in the  office  of  the
Secretary of the Air  Force.   On  18  February  1997,  the  discharge
authority accepted the unconditional  waiver  submitted  and  directed
discharge under honorable conditions (general) without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of technical  sergeant,  was
discharged  from  the  Air  Force  on  24  February  1997,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct) and received an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He served 16 years    5 months and 23
days total active service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRP, reviewed the
application and states 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.   He  was  not
entitled to separation pay since his discharge was for  misconduct  in
accordance with AFI 36-3208.  They  further  state  that  the  records
indicate  that  applicant’s  military   service   was   reviewed   and
appropriate action was taken.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed the application and states
the  applicant  first  challenges  the  legal  justification  for  his
involuntary discharge and the characterization  of  his  service.   In
support of this challenge, they state the applicant  claims  that  his
1st Sergeant told him that unless he waived his right to  a  discharge
board hearing, the legal office had indicated they would not  be  able
to discharge him because of his years of service, rank  and  exemplary
record and the weakness of the USAF case.  They state, in essence, the
applicant  is  alleging  that  the  government   proceeded   with   an
involuntary discharge action without sufficient  evidence  to  support
it.  This alleged accommodation to allow the applicant a quick way out
is a fiction with no substance.  It has absolutely no support in  fact
or the record this office has reviewed, nor are applicant’s assertions
supported in any way in the two legal reviews done in this  case.   To
the contrary, the case against the applicant was strong.

They state that the applicant’s case required special  processing  due
to his high level security clearance and, because it involved a  board
waiver, AFI 36-3208 required the case to  be  forwarded  to  a  higher
level to be finalized.  There  is  nothing  in  this  application  for
relief or any  of  the  supplemental  documents  submitted  after  the
initial filing which would support or suggest that the Air Force acted
in a negligent or dilatory manner in processing this case.

They state that the applicant has recently  supplemented  his  demands
for monetary relief.  He is now also claiming the Air Force owes him a
considerable, but not totally quantified, amount  of  damages  due  to
lost wages, prospective retirement pay for the remainder of his  life,
medical,  dental  and  commissary   benefits,   loss   of   employment
opportunities, probable loss of his home  and  loss  of  his  security
clearance.  They state, much of what the applicant  asks  for  is  not
compensable as a matter of law.  More importantly, the  applicant  has
presented absolutely no evidence that he has incurred any  compensable
expenses directly related to the actions of the Air Force.  They state
that the applicant has the burden of presenting  evidence  to  support
his claims; simple assertions  are  not  sufficient  to  sustain  that
burden.  Therefore, based on the reasons  cited  above,  they  do  not
believe there has been any legal error  or  injustice,  and  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 July 1997, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

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 probable error or injustice warranting  upgrading  of
applicant’s  discharge  and  awarding  him  separation   pay.    After
reviewing the evidence of record, we must state that what has happened
to the applicant is very unfortunate.  However, the applicant, at  the
time that he was entitled to  present  his  case  before  a  discharge
board, waived his right for a  hearing  and  did  not  desire  lengthy
service probation consideration.  It appears that the applicant wanted
to be separated from the Air Force as soon as  possible.   Applicant’s
records reveal that his performance in the Air Force  was  outstanding
for approximately 15 years and it is unfortunate that his  career  had
to end based on the circumstances  that  exists  in  this  case.   The
applicant states that his first sergeant indicated that  he  would  be
entitled to separation pay but he has failed to provide  documentation
to support this allegation.  In view of the above findings, we are  in
agreement with the comments and recommendation of the  Office  of  the
Staff Judge Advocate and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

4.    Notwithstanding the above  comments,  we  do  believe  that  the
reason for applicant’s discharge should be changed so that it will not
be harmful to him when seeking employment.  Based on the circumstances
surrounding applicant’s discharge, we recommend  the  reason  for  his
separation be changed to “Miscellaneous  Reasons”  with  a  separation
code of “KND”.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 24 February  1997,
he was discharged under the provisions of AFI  36-3208,  Miscellaneous
Reasons, and issued a Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “KND.”

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 April 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 24 Jun 97.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Jul 97.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Nov 93.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair