RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02154
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is a very mature, stable individual and he  gets  along  well  with
people.  Most people who know him say he is relaxed,  easy  going  and
does his job well.  He wants his discharge  to  reflect  that  he  was
honorably discharged.  The US is the greatest country in the world and
he would like to serve his country with honor  and  pride.   He  would
fight for this country's freedom with a gun in one hand and a bible in
the other.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26  November  1982  in
the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 26 April 1985, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him for a pattern of misconduct
consisting of minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific  reasons
for the discharge action were as follows:

      a.  On 24 July  1984,  the  applicant  received  a  letter  of
counseling (LOC) for failing to maintain  AFR  35-10  standards  and
disrespect to his supervisor.

      b.  On 4 October 1984, the applicant received a LOC  reminding
him of what is expected while in the  Air  Force  and  341st  Supply
Squadron.

      c.  The applicant received  a  LOC  on  11  October  1984  for
repeated dormitory inspection write-ups.

      d.  On 7 December 1984, the applicant received a LOC for  lack
of integrity and honesty  during  an  exercise  by  covering  for  a
friend, which made him unavailable during the exercise.

      e.  The applicant received a LOC on 8 February 1985, regarding
AFR 35-10 standards.  It was reported to his supervisor that Col  H.
suggested the applicant needed a haircut and mustache trim.

      f.  On 21 February 1985, the applicant received a LOC for  AFR
35-10 violation and disrespect toward supervision.

      g.  The applicant  received a Letter  of Reprimand (LOR) on 21
February 1985 for operating  a  vehicle  in  a  careless  manner  by
striking a parked vehicle, failing to stop and identify himself  and
failing to give notice of the accident by the quickest means  on  14
February 1985 in the city of Great Falls, MT.

      h.  On 23 April 1985, the applicant received an Article 15 for
dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation.
 His punishment consisted of  reduction  to  airman,  forfeiture  of
$50.00 a month for two months and restriction to the limits  of  the
base for 30 days.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist  him  and
to submit statements in his own behalf.  He was advised that failure
to consult with counsel or submit statements  could  constitute  his
waiver of his rights to do so.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for  discharge  action
that  the  applicant's  supervisor  repeatedly  counseled  him  with
negative results.

On 29 April 1985, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  waived
his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 8 May 1985 in which the staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 25 November 1983            9
                 20 May 1984            9
                 25 April 1985               6

Applicant was discharged on 9 May 1985, in the grade of airman  with
an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge,  in  accordance
with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46 for  misconduct-a  pattern  of  minor
disciplinary infractions.  He served a total of 2  years,  5  months
and 14 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge  upgraded  to  honorable.   They  denied  the  applicant's
request on 25 August 1997.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Based  on  the  information  and  evidence  provided  they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the LOCs and LORs on file were submitted  by  his
supervisor (SSgt P.).  During the timeframe that  SSgt  P.  supervised
him, she repeatedly made comments pertaining to her private life.   He
felt her comments were out of context as his supervisor.  He  reported
her conduct to the first sergeant and from that time on SSgt  P.  made
it impossible for him to complete his duties to her satisfaction. SSgt
P's. means for  disciplining  him  was  to  write  him  up  for  minor
disciplinary actions.

The applicant further states he was not informed he had  to  submit  a
statement.  He chose to accept the discharge because he felt he  could
not receive adequate representation under SSgt  P.'s  direction.   His
former supervisor MSgt B. states in  a  letter  that  the  applicant's
discharge was a result of SSgt P.'s poor supervisory skills.   He  was
21 years old at the time of these events and it was impossible  to  up
come with facts to support his case except the letter from his  former
supervisor.  He requests that consideration be  given  to  the  events
preceding his discharge, the events of SSgt  P's.  discharge  and  the
opinion of others who have worked under SSgt P.  This will prove  that
SSgt P. was unable to contain her affairs and directed her aggravation
on the applicant by finding his work ethics inapt (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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  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
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore,  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 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-
02154 in Executive Session on October 29, 2002 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant's Response, dated 31 Aug 02.




                                        PEGGY E. GORDON
                                        Panel Chair