RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02058
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  be  upgraded  to  an  honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He reenlisted in the Air Force 1983 and  was  stationed  at  Minot  AB.   He
changed career fields from security policeman to Disaster Preparedness.   He
states that he was the main instructor for chemical weapons defense,  taught
over 25,000 personnel in two years, and was  the  NCOIC  of  equipment.   He
also participated in off-base activities (Big Brothers  and  a  Canine  Demo
Team).  He indicates that his career was going along fine  until  1986  when
his supervisor started harassing him.  He went to social actions  and  filed
a complaint and was told his complaint was confidential.   Within  24  hours
his supervisor was aware of his complaint and his  situation  worsened.   He
contacted his congressman’s office and was harassed by  his  first  sergeant
who indicated that he was a disgrace to his unit  because  he  went  to  his
congressman.

He states that he served his country and would do  it  again  today  without
hesitation and would gladly give his life for his  country.   He  is  asking
for justice to be done.  He has seen airman with  drug  charges  receive  an
honorable discharge.

He states that in the last 15 years he  has  held  a  job  in  security  and
received a degree in culinary arts and is looking forward to a career  as  a
police dispatcher.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
character references, and other documentation.



Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period  in  question,  the  applicant  was  serving  in  the
Regular Air Force  in  the  grade  of  sergeant,  having  reenlisted  on  18
February 1983 for a period of six (6) years.

The applicant was notified of his commander's intent to  initiate  discharge
action against him for unsatisfactory  performance.   The  specific  reasons
follow:

      On or about September 1985 to 12 November 1985, you  failed  to  bring
your dress and appearance in  compliance  with  AFR  35-10  after  receiving
verbal suggestions and warnings to  do  so,  as  evidenced  by  a  Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer  Status  Consideration  (AF  Form  418,
Vacation of NCO Status) dated 12 November 1985.

      During January 1986, your dress and appearance  did  not  comply  with
AFR 35-10 in that the  fatigue  uniform  you  were  wearing  was  thoroughly
wrinkled, had the chevrons on crooked, and displayed the wrong patch  (USAFE
patch instead of the required SAC  patch),  as  evidenced  by  a  letter  of
reprimand dated 17 January 1986.

      On or about 28 May 1986, you failed to properly  maintain  specialized
team training records, as it was your duty to  do  so,  as  evidenced  by  a
letter of reprimand dated 30 May 1986.

      On or about 7 July 1986, you failed to properly  complete  a  physical
inventory of equipment, as it was your duty to do, as  evidenced  by  Record
of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (Article 15) dated 23 July 1986.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
several attempts were made to encourage the  applicant  to  bring  his  duty
performance,  financial  responsibility  and  personal  appearance   up   to
standards  through  counseling,  reprimands,  establishment  of  unfavorable
information file and placement on  the  control  roster.   All  efforts  had
proved fruitless as recorded  by  his  disciplinary  actions.   He  did  not
recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant continued to fail  to
meet Air Force standards for  duty  performance,  financial  responsibility,
and personal appearance.

On 11 September 1986, the Staff Judge  Advocate  indicated  that  either  an
honorable  or  a  general  discharge  were  authorized  for   unsatisfactory
performance under paragraph 5-26,  AFR  39-10.   The  commander  recommended
that the applicant receive a general discharge and the file was adequate  to
support such a characterization.

Applicant was discharged on 25  September  1986,  in  the  grade  of  senior
airman with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions  of  AFR   39-10,   Chapter   5,   Section E,   Paragraph   5-26,
Unsatisfactory Performance.  He served a total of 3 years, 7 months,  and  8
days on his last enlistment and 7 years,  7 months  and  14  days  of  total
active military service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  that  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  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.

After reviewing the applicant’s case, it was determined he  did  not  submit
any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an  upgrade  of
the discharge.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, that is 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.   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.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.

4.    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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-02058
in Executive Session on 10 September 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
                  Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 July 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 July 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.



                                JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                Panel Chair