RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02961
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable conditions, discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to the incidents that caused his discharge, he had a  spotless
record and had accomplished a good reputation with  his  supervisors
and co-workers.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 Nov 78, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman.

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

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              16 Nov 79                    9
              17 May 80                    9
               3 Apr 81                    9
              13 Dec 81                    9
              13 Dec 82                    9
               1 Jun 83                    9
               1 Jun 84                    9

On 18 Jan 83, applicant was notified of his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for threatening to  kill  his
wife and for pushing her, causing her to  strike  a  wall,  and  for
choking her with his hands.

On 25 Jan 83, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a  personal  appearance
and submitted a written presentation.  On 7 Feb  83,  he  was  found
guilty by  his  commander  who  imposed  the  following  punishment:
Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade  of  airman  first
class, forfeiture of $200 a month for two months but  the  execution
of that portion of the punishment which provided  for  reduction  to
the grade of airman first class and forfeiture in excess of  $100  a
month for two months was suspended until 1 Aug  83.   Applicant  did
not appeal  the  punishment.   The  Article  15  was  filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 2 Jul 84, applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for  being  derelict  in  the
performance  of  his  duties  by  negligently  failing  to   destroy
classified materials.  On 5 Jul 84, after consulting  with  counsel,
applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested  a
personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.  On  5 Jul
84, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed  the  following
punishment:  Reduction from the grade of sergeant to  the  grade  of
airman first class, forfeiture of $50 a month for two months, and 30
days correctional custody but the execution of the  portion  of  the
punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first
class was suspended  until  5 Jan  85.   Applicant  did  appeal  the
punishment; however,  on  12 Jul  84,  after  contacting  the  legal
office, applicant decided not to appeal the Article 15  but  elected
to accept the nonjudicial punishment.

On  12 Jul  84,  applicant  disobeyed  a  lawful  order  to  undergo
correctional custody for a period of 30 consecutive  days.   Because
of  this  misconduct,  on  24 Jul  84,  the  commander  vacated  the
suspension, imposed on 5 Jul 84, which related to reduction  to  the
grade of airman first class.  The applicant  was  reduced  from  the
grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class with a new date
of rank (DOR) of 5 Jul 84.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On  17 Sep  84,  applicant  was  notified  that  his  commander  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for a  Pattern
of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to  Good  Order  and  Discipline,
according to  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-47.   The  reasons  for  the
commander’s action were the incidents of  misconduct  for  which  he
received the Article 15 punishments cited above.

On 20 Sep 84, after consulting counsel  and  being  advised  of  his
rights and privileges, applicant offered a conditional waiver of the
rights associated with an administrative discharge board  in  return
for a discharge not less than general.  He submitted  no  additional
documentation in support of  his  conditional  waiver  request.   On
28 Sep 84, the case was reviewed by the group Staff  Judge  Advocate
and found to be legally sufficient to support discharge.   On  1 Oct
84, the discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver from the
applicant  and  directed  that  he  be  given  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge.

On 3 Oct 84, the applicant was discharged under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10 (Misconduct-Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order  and
Discipline) with a general, under honorable conditions, discharge in
the grade of airman first class.  He was credited with 5  years,  10
months, and 17 days of active service.

On 11 Oct 85, the numbered Air Force Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate
reviewed the case and indicated that, as the  special  court-martial
convening authority, the group commander did not have the  authority
to accept the conditional waiver and direct  discharge.   He  stated
that the Air Force Military Personnel  Center  (now  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center), Randolph AFB, Texas, advised that a new action by
the proper official, the general court-martial convening  authority,
was necessary to confirm the applicant’s discharge.  The XXth CSG/CC
recommended acceptance of the  conditional  waiver  and  approved  a
general discharge without P&R.  The case file was reviewed and found
legally  sufficient  to  warrant  discharge  as  recommended.    The
Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate  also  stated  that  the  case  file
contained no errors or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the applicant,  other  than  the  processing  irregularity
which necessitated  this  confirming  action  (legal  review).   The
evidence was sufficient to support the administrative  discharge  of
the applicant for a pattern of misconduct.  Despite  the  AFR  39-10
language that discharges for misconduct will, as a  rule,  be  under
other than honorable conditions, the applicant’s military record was
such that the approval of a general discharge was not inappropriate.
 The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate  recommended  that  the  general
discharge (under honorable conditions) without P&R be  approved  and
that  the  prior  action  of  the  special  court-martial  convening
authority be set aside and replaced  by  this  action.   The  Acting
Staff Judge Advocate concurred.

On 25 Oct 85, the XXth CSG/CC reviewed the administrative  discharge
case  and  approved  the  discharge  of  applicant  with  a  general
discharge under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47.  He  indicated  that  P&R
was not appropriate in this case and that the previous action of the
special court-martial authority was confirmed and replaced  by  this
action.

Applicant provided a  National  Guard  Bureau  Form  22  (Report  of
Separation and Record of Service) which reflects that  he  served  a
total of 14 years, 10 months, and 17 days  of  total  service  which
includes 5 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active Federal  service.
On 12 Aug 00, he was separated  from  the  Army  National  Guard  of
Arkansas and as a Reserve  of  the  Army  under  the  provisions  of
National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Expiration Term of Service (ETS))
with an honorable  characterization  of  service  in  the  grade  of
specialist (E-4).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated that, based upon the documentation in
the file, 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.  The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the
discharge  characterization   he   received.    Accordingly,   DPPRS
recommends the applicant’s records remain the same and  his  request
be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
15 Dec 00 for review and response.  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.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable  error  or  injustice.   After
careful consideration of the circumstances  of  this  case  and  the
evidence provided by the applicant, we are not  persuaded  that  the
discharge action was in error or unjust.   The  evidence  of  record
supports  the  stated   reasons   for   applicant’s   administrative
discharge, i.e., a pattern of misconduct  which  resulted  in  three
Article  15  actions  against  the  applicant.   Therefore,  in  our
opinion, responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the applicant’s involuntary separation,  and  we  did  not
find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or
that applicant was not afforded all rights to which entitled at  the
time of his discharge.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that  no  basis  exists  to
recommend favorable action on the applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

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 20 March 2001,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Nov 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Dec 00.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair