RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-03104
            INDEX NUMBER:  A02.17/18

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  Gary R. Myers

      XXXXXXXXXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated  in  the  Air  Force  in  the  rank  of  technical
sergeant.

His separation for a “pattern of misconduct” be expunged  from  his
records.

He receive back pay and allowances from the date of his  separation
to the date of his reinstatement.

He receive credit  for  time  in  grade  for  pay,  promotion,  and
retirement purposes from the date of his separation to the date  of
his reinstatement.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongly accused of spousal abuse.

He was separated from the Air Force for a “pattern  of  misconduct”
based upon one Article 15.

He received long distance legal representation  that  was  woefully
inadequate and resulted in the waiver of a discharge board.

His wife  had  deep-seated  emotional  problems,  which  manifested
themselves in various ways.  The applicant provides a bizarre (sic)
letter he claims was written by his wife.

His wife had a proclivity for misstatement  and  exaggeration.   He
provides a memorandum opinion from a judge rendered  in  a  custody
action to support his claim.

His wife made a false official statement in a court filing accusing
him  of  physically  assaulting  her.   The  applicant  provides  a
statement from a third party to refute this.

Statements from eyewitnesses debunk (sic) the notion that the  wife
was ever physically assaulted on 21, 28, and  30  October  1995  as
alleged in an Air Force Office  of  Special  Investigation  (AFOSI)
Report of Investigation (ROI).

The  Article  15,  which  the  applicant  accepted,  was  done   on
30 Sep 96 for incidents that allegedly occurred in October 1995.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information taken  from  the  applicant’s  master  personnel  file,
reflects that he entered the active Air Force on 21 June 1982.   He
served on continuous active duty and entered his last enlistment on
14 June 1993.  His highest grade held  was  Staff  Sergeant  (E-5).
His last eight Enlisted  Performance  Reports  reflect  ratings  of
4,3,5,5,5,5,5,and 2 (referral), (oldest to latest).

The applicant was offered proceedings under Article 15 on 23 Sep 96
for unlawfully assaulting his wife on divers occasions  between  on
or about  21  October  1995  and  30  October  1995.   He  accepted
proceedings under Article 15 on 30  Sep  96  and  was  punished  on
9 October 1996.  He was reduced to the grade of SrA with a new date
of rank of 9 October 1996 and ordered to forfeit  $675.00  pay  per
month for two months.

The applicant was  also  notified  on  30  September  1996  by  the
Squadron Commander (CC) that he was being recommended for discharge
from the Air Force for a Pattern of Misconduct based  on  the  same
incidents as the  Article  15.   He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
discharge notification on 30 September 1996.  He indicated that  he
understood that the approval of the recommendation could result  in
his separation from  the  Air  Force  under  other  than  honorable
conditions and acknowledged that military legal  counsel  had  been
made available to assist him.

On 7 October 1996, the applicant offered an unconditional waiver of
the  rights  associated  with  an  administrative  discharge  board
hearing.  The waiver was contingent upon the  receipt  of  no  less
than a general discharge if the recommendation  for  his  discharge
was approved.   The  applicant  did  not  submit  statements.   The
applicant’s counsel also signed the memorandum indicating that  the
applicant  had  been  counseled  and  advised  of  his  rights  and
privileges.

The  applicant’s  squadron  commander  recommended  to   the   Wing
Commander on 28 Oct 96 that the applicant’s offer for a conditional
waiver of the board entitlement be accepted.

On 31 December 1996, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate’s  office  found
the discharge case file to be legally sufficient.  They recommended
that the  Wing  Commander  recommend  to  the  Numbered  Air  Force
Commander that the applicant be discharged with a  characterization
of service of general under honorable conditions without  an  offer
of probation and rehabilitation.

On 3 January 1997, the Wing Commander recommended to  the  Numbered
Air Force Commander that the applicant’s  offer  of  a  conditional
waiver be accepted without probation and rehabilitation.   He  also
recommended  that  the  applicant’s  current  term  of  service  be
characterized as general under honorable conditions.

On 10 January 1997, the Numbered Air  Force  Staff  Judge  Advocate
found  the  discharge  case  file  to  be  legally  sufficient  for
discharge for misconduct.  They recommended  to  the  Numbered  Air
Force Commander that he accept the applicant’s  conditional  waiver
and that he direct that the applicant be discharged for  misconduct
with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 11 Jan  97,  the  Numbered  Air  Force  Commander  accepted  the
applicant’s conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board
and directed that the applicant be separated from the U S Air Force
with a general discharge for a  pattern  of  misconduct.   He  also
decided that the applicant  would  not  be  offered  probation  and
rehabilitation.

The applicant  was  discharged  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct  on
16 January 1997 in the grade of Senior Airman (SrA)  (E-4)  with  a
General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge.

The applicant submitted an application to the Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.  On 19 Mar 98, he  appeared  and  testified  before  the
AFDRB, with counsel.  The ARDRB 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
relief.  Upgrade of the discharge was denied.  A copy of the  AFDRB
Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,   AFPC/DPPRS,
evaluated  this  application.   They  recommend   denial   of   the
applicant’s request.

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  in
April 1998 for a discharge upgrade and was denied.   The  applicant
did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices   that   occurred   in   the    discharge    processing.
Additionally,  the  applicant  provided  no  facts  warranting  his
reinstatement to active duty.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

A copy of the Air Force advisory was forwarded to  the  applicant’s
Counsel on 11 Feb 00 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

___________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of  the
Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  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 the 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  considered   with   this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 31 May  2000,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. William Edwards, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 24 Nov 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jan 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated, 11 Feb 00.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair