RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00395
            INDEX CODE:  100, 126.04
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The five Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and a Memo of Record (MR) be
removed from his records.

2.    The Article 15 he received in 1991 be removed from his records.

3.    Change the reason for separation, his separation code,  and  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to reflect  he  was  “separated  in
good standing” with a “clean” record.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requests a brand  new  DD  Form  214  (Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge From Active Duty) that reflects his true service record  for
the one he has, although honorable,  is  a  poor  document  and  gives
potential employers doubt about his service.  He has suffered  greatly
as a result of the documentation in his military record.  He  wants  a
clean record and a new DD Form 214.  As determined by the  AFDRB,  the
Article 15 and LORs were the result of a personality conflict that  he
had with his Flight Chief, a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an affidavit from his
former Area Defense  Counsel  (ADC)  and  a  copy  of  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 16 Apr 87.

Applicant’s  Airman  Performance  Report  (APR)/Enlisted   Performance
Report (EPR) profile follows:

          PERIOD ENDING            OVERALL EVALUATION

            15 Apr 88                      9
             9 Feb 89                      9
             9 Feb 90                      5 (New rating system)
             9 Feb 91                      2 (Referral Report)
On 20 Mar 90, the applicant received an LOR  for  failure  to  meet  a
dental appointment on 12 Mar 90.  The LOR was filed in his Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

On 30 Jul 90, an MR was signed by the applicant indicating,  to  date,
10  checks  were  returned  to  the  Base  Exchange  totaling  $596.80
including service charges.  Applicant indicated since he was unable to
make full payment at the time, partial payments would be made  at  the
following rate:  $150 would be paid on each military payday  beginning
on 1 Aug 90 and the final payment would be $146.80.  To his knowledge,
no additional checks would be returned.  On 30 Jul 90,  applicant  was
verbally counseled on his financial responsibilities.

On 20 Dec 90, he received an LOR for failure to pass a dormitory  room
inspection.  Specifically, his refrigerator was unplugged which led to
an unsanitary condition of mold and mildew.   There  was  evidence  of
incense being burned.  The  windows  had  not  been  cleaned  and  the
bathroom was unclean also.  The top of his wall locker was in disarray
and not orderly.  The entire room was dusty.  The LOR was filed in his
UIF.

On 21 Dec 90, he received an LOR for reporting late for duty.  He  was
also derelict in the  performance  of  his  duties  by  not  obtaining
permission to return to the SSCC (Headquarters  for  Area 2  security)
when he was ordered  to  remain  mobile  which  was  a  compromise  of
perimeter security and a violation of  Article  92,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ).   Additionally,  he  did  not  have  all  his
required equipment during his shift.  The LOR was filed in his UIF.

On 23 Dec 90, he received an LOR for failure to have his weapon  drawn
at the time prescribed by the duty roster.  The LOR was filed  in  his
UIF.

On 27 Dec 90, he received an  LOR  for  being  six  months  behind  in
payments on a loan agreement at  the  Pentagon  Federal  Credit  Union
(PFCU).  He was $295.82 delinquent in  past  payments.   The  LOR  was
filed in his UIF.

On 24 Jan 91, applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon  him  for  failure  to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

On 29 Jan 91, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested  a  personal  appearance,
and submitted a written presentation.

On 14 Feb 91, he was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of  senior  airman  to
the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $200 pay (reduction and
forfeitures were suspended until 12 Aug 91, after which time it  would
be remitted without further action  unless  sooner  vacated),  and  30
days’ correctional custody to be effective 19 Feb 91.

Applicant did appeal the punishment; however, the appeal was denied on
21 Feb 91.  The Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

On  18 Mar  91,  applicant  was  notified  that  his   commander   was
recommending he be discharged from the Air  Force  for  a  pattern  of
misconduct and that his service would be characterized as general.

On 26 Mar 91, the recommendation for discharge  was  approved  by  the
commander.  The applicant would be discharged from the Air Force for a
pattern of misconduct, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-
47a, and would be issued a general  discharge.   Consistent  with  the
best interest of the Air Force, discharge would not be  suspended  for
probation and rehabilitation.

On 27 Mar 91, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (Misconduct-Pattern Discreditable Involvement With  Military  or
Civil  Authorities)  with  a  general  (under  honorable   conditions)
discharge in the grade of senior  airman.   He  was  credited  with  3
years, 11 months, and 12 days of active service.

On 16 Jul 92, the applicant appeared and testified  before  the  AFDRB
appealing for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

On 21 Jul 92, the AFDRB found that neither evidence of record nor that
provided by the applicant substantiated  an  impropriety  which  would
justify a change  of  discharge.   However,  based  upon  the  record,
applicant’s testimony, and evidence provided  by  the  applicant,  the
AFDRB found that the applicant’s character of and reason for discharge
were  inequitable.   The  AFDRB  concluded  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.  However, in  view  of  the  foregoing  findings,  the  AFDRB
further concluded that the overall quality of applicant’s service  was
more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge and the reason for
discharge  was  more  accurately  described  as  convenience  of   the
government.  Therefore, the AFDRB upgraded the  applicant’s  discharge
to honorable, changed the reason for discharge to “Convenience of  the
Government,” and changed the separation code from  “JKA”  (Misconduct-
Pattern Discreditable Involvement With Military or Civil  Authorities)
to “JFF” (Directed by Secretary of the Air Force).

Based on the above,  a  new  DD  Form  214  was  issued  changing  the
applicant’s discharge to  honorable,  the  reason  for  separation  to
convenience of the government and his separation code to JFF.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this
application and indicated that the Article 15  document  contained  in
the applicant’s Master Personnel Record appears complete and proper on
its face  and  is  thus  entitled  to  a  presumption  of  regularity.
Applicant, in an undated 18-page statement to the AFDRB, did not  deny
the facts of the incidents that formed the basis for his  Article  15,
LORs, and the Memo of Record.  Instead, he offers mitigation for  each
of the incidents and also argues that the incidents were blown out  of
proportion due to a personality conflict that he had with  his  Flight
Chief.  He argues that the AFDRB “determined” that the Article 15  and
the LORs “were the result of a personality conflict.”  The AFDRB  made
no such determination.  Instead, the  AFDRB  found  that  neither  the
evidence  of  record  nor  the  evidence  provided  by  the  applicant
substantiated  an  impropriety  which  would  justify  a   change   of
discharge.  The AFDRB did find  that  based  on  the  record  and  the
applicant’s testimony and evidence the applicant’s  character  of  and
reason for discharge were inequitable.  The AFDRB did  not  find  that
the applicant did not commit the offenses stated in the Article 15 and
the  LORs.   The  AFDRB  merely  found  that  the  minor  disciplinary
infractions did not offset the applicant’s otherwise  good  record  of
conduct and performance.  The AFDRB found that a personality  conflict
“contributed” to the documentation of minor infractions.  In  summary,
the  AFDRB  upheld  the  applicant’s  discharge  based  on  the  minor
infractions contained in the Article 15 and the LORs.  The  AFDRB  did
not find that he had a defense or justification for  the  infractions.
It merely found  that  the  infractions  did  not  justify  a  general
discharge for misconduct.  The AFDRB did  find  that  the  infractions
justified a discharge for the  convenience  of  the  government.   The
evidence of the record demonstrates that the applicant  committed  the
infractions contained in the Article 15 and the LORs and that  he  had
no legal defense or justification for the infractions.  JAJM indicates
that the applicant’s request is untimely  and  should  be  denied  for
failing to comply with the statute of  limitations.   Furthermore,  he
provides no explanation for his failure  to  file  his  request  in  a
timely manner.  Finally, after reviewing the  available  record,  JAJM
concludes that administrative relief is unwarranted.  Commanders  have
a wide range of administrative and  disciplinary  tools  available  to
ensure the maintenance of  good  order  and  discipline  within  their
organizations; absent evidence to  the  contrary,  actions  commanders
take  are  generally  considered  appropriate.   The  substantive  and
procedural aspects of the Article 15 action and the LORs  are  legally
sustainable.  The applicant does not deny  committing  the  underlying
acts, he merely asserts they were not  appropriate  responses  to  his
misconduct.  Accordingly, JAJM recommends  that  the  Board  deny  the
relief requested by the applicant.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this  application  and  indicated  that  the  case  was  reviewed  for
separation processing and  there  were  no  errors  or  irregularities
causing an injustice to the applicant.  The  discharge  complied  with
directives in effect  at  the  time  of  applicant’s  discharge.   The
records indicate his military service  was  reviewed  and  appropriate
action was taken.  He did not identify  any  specific  errors  in  the
discharge processing nor provide facts  warranting  a  change  in  the
authority for discharge or a change in the separation code assigned by
the AFDRB.  In addition, the DD Form 214 on file  in  the  applicant’s
personnel record was reissued as a result of the AFDRB decision and is
correct.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends  the  applicant’s  request  be
denied.

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

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this
application and indicated that a review of applicant’s case  file  was
conducted and the RE code 2C is correct.  The type of discharge  drove
assignment of the RE code.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  provided  an  eight-
page response (see Exhibit G).

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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the LORs, the MR, or the Article 15 should  be  removed
from his record, or that the reason for his separation, his separation
code or RE code should be changed.  We note, and as noted by JAJM, the
evidence of the  record  reveals  that  the  applicant  committed  the
infractions contained in the Article 15 and the LORs and that  he  had
no legal defense or justification for the infractions.   In  addition,
we note that the AFDRB changed the applicant’s discharge to  honorable
and the reason  for  separation  to  convenience  of  the  government.
Therefore, we find no persuasive evidence to further change the reason
for separation.  Additionally, we note that when applicant’s discharge
was  changed  to  honorable,  his  RE  code  was   changed   from   2B
(Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10,  with  a  general  or  under
other   than   honorable   conditions   (UOTHC)   discharge)   to   2C
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge) which, according
to the Special Programs and BCMR Manager, is correct because the  type
of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.  In view  of  the  above
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling
basis to recommend granting further relief on this application.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without  counsel,  will
add to our understanding of the  issue(s)  involved.   Therefore,  the
request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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 14 March 2000, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member






The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 27 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 20 Jul 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 12 Oct 99.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair