RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01264

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded.

2.    His records be corrected to show that he was retired from active  duty
in a pay grade commensurate with years of service.

3.     He  receive  active  duty  pay,  including  allowances,   which   was
previously withheld.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unlawful, improper and inequitable, due to the following:

      a.    The Separation Order, AF Form 100, issued in June 1976,  was  no
longer in use to validate the discharge.

      b.    The regulation prescribed by  the  Secretary  provided  for  his
retention for lengthy service when the discharge action was initiated.

      c.    He  was  deprived  of  his  regulatory  entitlement  to  special
consideration for probation to safeguard his vested interest in retirement.

      d.    As a master sergeant, he had a tenure  expectancy  of  26  years
service.

      e.    He was denied active duty pay and allowances  until  his  lawful
discharge.

      f.    He was deprived of due process under the US Constitution.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 July 1968, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  and
entered active duty.

The applicant was denied award of the Air Force Good Conduct  Medal  (AFGCM)
during the period 25 July 1977 through 16 May 1979 by the commander.

The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 August  1980  for  a
period of 4 years.

On 19 March 1982, the applicant’s commander imposed  nonjudicial  punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ, for  operating  a  vehicle  while  drunk  and  being
incapacitated for the proper performance  of  his  duties.   The  punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of technical sergeant  (suspended  until
14 September 1982) and forfeiture of $400.00 for two months.  The  applicant
did not appeal the nonjudicial punishment.

On 9 November 1982, the applicant  was  permanently  disqualified  from  the
Personal Reliability Program (PRP) based  on  his  diagnosis  as  a  problem
drinker.

On 11 May 1984, the applicant was placed on  the  Control  Roster  for  duty
performance not up to standards expected of a senior NCO and supervisor.

On 17 August 1984, the applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of
master sergeant under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10  (Expiration  Term  of
Service) and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4I  (Serving  on
Control Roster).  He completed 16 years, 8 months, and  25  days  of  active
service.

A resume of applicant’s performance, since 1973, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING             OVERALL EVALUATION

          5 Nov 73                       9
         31 Jul 74                       9
         31 Jul 75                       9
          8 Jun 76                       9
          8 Jun 77                       9
          8 Jun 78                       9
         13 Aug 79                       9
         13 Aug 80                       9
         31 Jan 81                       9
         31 Jan 82                       8
         15 Nov 82                       7
         15 Nov 83                       7



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed  this  application  and  states
there  are  no  errors  or  irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to   the
applicant.  The separation order announcing his discharge  was  correct  and
in accordance with the administrative  orders  and  discharge  directive  in
effect at the time of his discharge.  Although an obsolete AF Form  100  was
used, the order form that was used contained all the  required  information,
was published in a timely manner, and was approved and  distributed  by  the
orders issuing authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states  the
applicant mistakenly believes the AF Form 100, rather than the DD Form  214,
is the certificate of discharge required by 10 USC 1168(a).   The  applicant
alleges  the  Secretary  improperly  withheld  approval  of  his  discharge;
however, this argument is without legal  basis.   The  applicant  relies  on
provisions of  AFR  39-10  which  provide  for  lengthy  service  review  of
individuals recommended for involuntary separation with at  least  16  years
and not more than 20  years  of  service  prior  to  their  discharge.   The
applicant  was  not  involuntarily  separated.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of his request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  states  that  he  does
not mistakenly believe the AF Form  100  is  the  certificate  of  discharge
required by  10 USC 1168(a).  It is the AF Form 100 which effects  discharge
or release from active duty and the DD  Form  214  simply  meets  the  legal
requirement of 10 USC 1168(a) of issuing a  certificate  when  it  has  been
made ready for delivery.  The DD Form 214 is not intended to have any  legal
effect on ending a member’s military status.  It was in error to  issue  the
DD Form 214 before a valid AF Form 100 was issued to effect  the  discharge.
The Secretary acted arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law when  issuing
the DD Form 214 before a valid AF Form 100  was  issued.   Furthermore,  his
placement on the control roster  did  not  prohibit  his  continued  service
since he had a right to probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant’s complete responses are attached at Exhibits F through J.


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.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our 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.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 12 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jun 98.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Jul 98.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 May 98.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Aug 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Nov 98, w/atchs.







      Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Dec 98, w/atchs.



             VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                  Panel Chair