RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01077
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable based on clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He realizes now the mistakes he made and the immaturity he  had  while
in the Air Force.  He truly regrets the mistakes  he  made  and  since
being discharged he has  tried  to  correct  them.   He  is  currently
employed as a firefighter with a local fire department.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  several   documents
pertaining to his post service activities.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 August 1987,  for  a
period of four years.

On 8 February 1991, the commander initiated  administrative  discharge
action against the applicant for misconduct.  He recommended that  the
applicant be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge.   The  specific
reasons for the proposed action were  that:   (1)  On  15  June  1989,
applicant,  through  culpable  inefficiency,  was  derelict   in   the
performance of his duty by failing to remain  alert  while  performing
escort duty for which he received an Article 15.  (2) On 30  September
1989, applicant was disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned
officer then known by him to be a  superior  noncommissioned  officer,
who was then in the  execution  of  his  office  for  which  applicant
received an Article 15.  (3) On 24  April  1990,  applicant  issued  a
personal check, #117, which was  dishonored  for  lack  of  sufficient
funds for which he was verbally counseled.   (4)  On  25  April  1990,
applicant was  disrespectful  in  language  toward  a  noncommissioned
officer known by him to  be  a  superior  NCO  who  was  then  in  the
execution of his office for  which  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand.  (5) On 27 May 1990, applicant  issued  a  personal  check,
#133, which was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds for  which  he
was verbally counseled.  (6) On 31 July 1990 and again on            1
August 1990 and  10  August  1990,  applicant  failed  to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty for which he received a Letter  of  Reprimand.
(7) On 1 November 1990, applicant was found in violation of AFR  35-10
for which he received a Letter of Counseling.  The commander  did  not
recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R).   On  8  February  1991,
applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  discharge  notification.   On  22
February 1991, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the  discharge
case legally  sufficient  and  on  26  February  1991,  the  discharge
authority approved a general discharge, without P&R.

On 1 March 1991, the applicant was discharged with an under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He  was  credited  with  3  years,  6
months and 11 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Assistant  NCOIC,  Separation  Procedures  Section,   AFPC/DPPRS,
reviewed the  application  and  recommends  that  the  application  be
denied.  That office 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.  It is also noted that the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s requested  upgrade  on  29
October 1991.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 June 2001, a complete copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was
forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 21 September 2001, a copy of applicant’s FBI Report  was  forwarded
to him requesting his review and  comments  in  conjunction  with  his
application.

On 1 October 2001, the applicant responded stating that he did not own
nor possess a shotgun of any  sort.   The  charges  against  him  were
dropped and cleared.  He states he has made great strides  to  improve
his life since his separation from the Air Force.

A copy of applicant’s response is attached 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.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error  or  that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  also
find insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation  that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which  precipitated
the  discharge,  and  available  evidence  related   to   post-service
activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do  not  believe  that
clemency is warranted.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
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 31 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 May 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 01.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 1 Oct 01.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair