RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01581

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be  upgraded  to  allow
his entry in the U.S. Army.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by legal counsel  that  it  would  be  best  not  to  fight  the
discharge proceedings and he would be able to appeal after one year  and  be
able to reenlist.

The applicant states that since his discharge, he has matured and  improved.
 He was a honor graduate from the police academy and was very  effective  as
a volunteer police officer.  He is currently  married  with  two  daughters.
He believes that he would be an  asset  to  the  Army  and  would  like  the
opportunity to serve.  He is not disputing what he did; however, in view  of
his age and immaturity at the time, he would like a second chance.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared  by  the
appropriate offices of the Air Force.  Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.


AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  the
application and states that based upon the documentation in the  file,  they
believe the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.   Furthermore,  the
applicant has not submitted any new evidence or  identified  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   Therefore,  they
recommend the application be denied.

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

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  the  application
and states that in their opinion,  the  commander’s  action  was  justified.
The reasons for  the  discharge  were  disrespect  toward  a  superior,  two
instances of dereliction of  duty,  two  instances  of  uniform  violations,
returning from lunch 2 ½  hours  late,  and  being  disrespectful  toward  a
fitness instructor at the base gym.  The applicant  has  not  satisfactorily
indicated the commander’s action was  inappropriate  or  not  in  compliance
with Air Force policy.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant’s
request.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 11 August  2000,  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.     We  find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of  applicant’s
discharge or the RE code issued at the time of his  discharge.   It  appears
that responsible officials applied appropriate standards  in  effecting  the
separation,  and  we  do  not  find  persuasive  evidence   that   pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the  rights
to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Considered alone,  we  conclude
the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the  discharge
was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.    Consideration of this Board, however, is not  limited  to  the  events
which precipitated the discharge.  We have  a  Congressional  mandate  which
permits consideration of other factors; e.g.,  applicant’s  background,  the
overall   quality   of   service,   and    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments.  Further, we may base our decision  on  matters  of  equity
and clemency rather than simply  on  whether  rules  and  regulations  which
existed at the time were followed.  This is  a  much  broader  consideration
than officials involved in the discharge were permitted,  and  our  decision
in no way discredits the validity of theirs.

5.    Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of  all  the
facts  and  circumstances  of  applicant’s  case,  we  are  persuaded   that
applicant has overcome the behavioral traits  which  led  to  the  contested
discharge and has been a productive member of  society.   We  recognize  the
adverse impact of the discharge applicant received; and, while it  may  have
been appropriate at the time, we  believe  it  would  be  an  injustice  for
applicant to continue to suffer  its  effects.  Accordingly,  we  find  that
corrective action is appropriate as a matter of equity and on the  basis  of
clemency. In view of this,  and  in  order  to  provide  the  applicant  the
opportunity to apply for entry in the Army, we believe his discharge  should
be upgraded to honorable and his RE code changed to “3K” in the interest  of
equity and justice.  Whether or not the applicant is successful will  depend
on the needs of the service and our  recommendation  in  no  way  guarantees
that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.   Therefore,
we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  on  20  September  1991,  he  was
honorably  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10  (Directed  by
Secretary of the Air Force); issued a Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)
code of “JFF” and a Reenlistment Eligibility code of “3K;” and furnished  an
Honorable Discharge certificate.


The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 28 September 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

All members voted to upgrade the applicant’s RE code.   A  majority  of  the
Board recommended the applicant’s  discharge  be  upgraded  and  Mr.  Groner
recommended  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  that  his  discharge  be
upgraded but does not wish  to  submit  a  minority  report.  The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jul 00.




      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 26 Jul 00.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Aug 00.




             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                  Panel Chair