RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01361
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable
and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may  enter
the Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Article 15 punishments imposed upon him on 31 Jul 84  for  "failure  to
go" and on 10 Sep 94 for "AWOL" were unjust.  His job performance  while  a
member of the Air Force was  top  notch  and  since  being  discharged  his
academic and community achievements have been exemplary.

In support of his request applicant has submitted a personal statement, his
administrative discharge package, his DD Form 214, Certificate  of  Release
or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  a  letter  of  support,  a  copy  of  his
Bachelor's Degree certificate, his resume, numerous Civil Air Patrol course
completion certificates, a  certificate  of  appreciation,  his  Air  Medal
certificate and citation,  his  Red  Service  Ribbon  certificate,  several
miscellaneous training certificates, and several local  newspaper  articles
in which he is featured.

A complete copy of his submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 Nov  81.   Prior  to  the
events under review, he received  two  Airman  Performance  Reports  (APRs)
closing 30 Sep 83 and 1 Apr 84, in which the overall evaluations were  “9s”
and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman  first  class  (E-3),
effective 16 May 82.

Applicant was notified by his commander on 25 Jun 84 of  intent  to  impose
punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
for failure to go to a dental appointment on 21 Jun 84,  he  could  not  be
reached during a recall on 21 Jun  84,  and  failure  to  go  to  a  dental
appointment on 22 Jun 84.  The applicant was advised of his rights  in  the
matter.  Applicant waived his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,
accepted nonjudicial proceedings, and submitted oral and written statements
to  his  commander.   After  considering  the  matters  presented  by   the
applicant, on 2 Jul 84, the commander determined  that  the  applicant  had
committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the
applicant.  The applicant received a suspended reduction to  the  grade  or
airman.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 on 2 Jul  84  and
elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 31 Jul 84, applicant was notified by his commander of intent  to  impose
punishment under Article 15,  UCMJ,  for  failure  to  go  to  a  scheduled
training appointment on 30 Jul 84.  The applicant was advised of his rights
in the matter.  Applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial
and accepted nonjudicial proceedings.  Applicant did  not  consult  counsel
and  submitted  oral  and  written  statements  to  his  commander.   After
considering the matters presented by the  applicant,  on  14  Aug  84,  the
commander determined that the applicant had committed one or  more  of  the
offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the  applicant.   The  applicant
was reduced to the grade of airman and ordered to  perform  30  consecutive
days of correctional custody.  The  portion  of  the  punishment  in  which
applicant was ordered to  perform  30  days  of  correctional  custody  was
suspended until 13 Feb 85.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  Article
15 on 14 Aug 84 and elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 4 Sep 84, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  for  reporting
to his appointed training appointment on 21 Aug 84, not wearing the  proper
uniform.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR on 6 Sep 84.

On 10 Sep 84, applicant was notified by his commander of intent  to  impose
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without authority  from
4 Sep 84 until 6 Sep 84.  The applicant was advised of his  rights  in  the
matter.  After consulting counsel, applicant waived  his  right  to  demand
trial by court-martial, accepted nonjudicial proceedings  and  submitted  a
written  statement  to  his  commander.   After  considering  the   matters
presented by the applicant, on 14 Sep 84, the commander determined that the
applicant had committed one or more of the  offenses  alleged  and  imposed
punishment on the applicant.  The applicant was ordered to perform 45  days
of extra duties.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article  15  on  14
Sep 84 and elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 19 Oct 84, applicant was notified by his commander  that  in  accordance
with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46, he was recommending that the  applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions.   The
applicant was  advised  of  his  rights.   On  19  Oct  94,  the  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification.  Applicant  submitted  a  written
statement to the discharge authority along with two letters of support.  On
30 Oct 84, applicant's discharge package was reviewed by AFLC/JAM and found
to be legally sufficient.  On 2 Nov 84, the  discharge  authority  directed
that the applicant be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  and  that  he  be
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Applicant  was
discharged on 2 Nov 84 after 2 years  11  months  and  15  days  of  active
military service.  He was issued an RE code of "2B."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAES reviewed applicant's request and states that the RE code is
correct (see Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPRS
states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify  any
errors or injustices warranting an upgrade to  the  discharge  he  received
(see Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's response to the Air Force  advisories  states  that  DPPRS  was
incorrect in stating that  he  consulted  counsel  prior  to  submitting  a
statement to the discharge authority and that he was aware of the fact that
he had the right to appeal the discharge decision.   Applicant  urges  that
the Board take into account his continued service  to  the  Air  Force  and
record of achievement as an officer in the Civil Air Patrol.

The applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  carefully  reviewed  the
applicant's complete submission in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case  and
particularly noted his post-service accomplishments.  However,  in  view  of
his overall record while in the Air Force, we are not persuaded that he  has
been the victim of either an error or injustice.  The action  taken  by  his
commander appears to  have  been  within  his  discretionary  authority  and
applicant was afforded due  process.   Therefore,  based  on  the  available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  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 10 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 00, w/Atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 29 Jun 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jun 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jul 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jul 00, w/Atch.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair