RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03067
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because he did not seek  the  information  that  he  filed  to  Social
Actions and the Base IG, he believes his discharge was  too  harsh  in
that his supervisor provoked most of the misbehavior.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement.
Applicant's complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 February 2000, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force
for 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  airman
first class (E-3).   Following  his  successful  completion  of  basic
military and technical training, he  was  assigned  to  duties  as  an
environmental apprentice, on or about 10 August 2000.

On 7 September 2000, the applicant was counseled for tardiness.  On 12
October 2000, he was  counseled  for  not  following  orders.   On  18
October 2000, he  was  counseled  for  disobeying  an  order.   On  15
November 2000, he was reprimanded for  a  uniform  violation.   On  20
December 2000, he was reprimanded for insubordinate conduct  toward  a
noncommissioned officer.  On 3 July 2001, he was issued  a  Letter  of
Reprimand for  disobeying  a  lawful  order,  failing  to  ensure  his
uniforms were serviceable at all times, and for making false  official
statements on three occasions.  On  20  August  2001,  he  received  a
Letter of Reprimand  for  being  insubordinate  to  a  noncommissioned
officer.  On 12 October 2001, he received a Letter  of  Reprimand  for
failing a dormitory inspection.

On 11 October 2001, the applicant’s commander notified  the  applicant
that he was considering whether to punish the applicant under  Article
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on allegations  that
the applicant had  been  disrespectful  to  a  senior  noncommissioned
officer and for being derelict in the performance of his duties.   The
applicant was  advised  of  his  rights.   After  consulting  military
counsel, the applicant waived his right  to  demand  trial  by  court-
martial and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings.  He waived his right
to make a personal appearance before the  commander  but  did  provide
written comments for review.  On 15 October  2001,  after  considering
the matters presented by the applicant, the  commander  determined  he
had committed  one  or  more  of  the  offenses  alleged  and  imposed
punishment on the applicant.  He was reduced in grade to airman  (E-2)
and reprimanded.  The applicant elected not to appeal the  punishment.
The commander determined that the nonjudicial  proceedings  should  be
filed in an Unfavorable Information File.

On 18 October 2001, the applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  for
being insubordinate to a noncommissioned officer and  for  failure  to
obey an order on 15 October 2001.  On 24 October 2001,  the  applicant
was issued a Letter of Reprimand for  failure  to  obey  an  order  or
regulation, disrespect toward  a  superior  commissioned  officer  and
insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer on or about 22
and 23 October 2001.  The applicant was advised that this letter would
be placed in his Unfavorable Information File and that his name  would
be placed on a control roster for a period of six months.

In the  meantime,  the  applicant  filed  an  Inspector  General  (IG)
complaint against his first sergeant.  In a  letter  dated  30 October
2001, the wing IG indicated the applicant’s complaint centered  around
problems with his  chain  of  command  and  his  perception  that  his
concerns were not being considered based on the fact that  he  was  an
African-American.  The applicant was advised that his allegations that
his supervisor threatened him with a discharge and gave him  a  letter
of counseling for unjust reasons, and, that the actions taken  against
him constituted reprisal were not substantiated (see Exhibit B).

On 26 November 2001, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant
that he was recommending he be discharged for a pattern of misconduct,
specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and  discipline,  with
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He was advised  of
his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification
and, after consulting counsel,  submitted  a  statement  in  which  he
requested probation  and  rehabilitation.   The  commander  thereafter
initiated  the  recommendation  for  separation  for  the  above-cited
reasons, without the offer of probation  and  rehabilitation.   In  an
undated legal review of the discharge case file, the wing staff  judge
advocate found the file was legally sufficient  and  recommended  that
the commander’s recommendations be approved.  On 3 December 2001,  the
discharge authority approved the  separation.   He  indicated  he  had
considered probation and rehabilitation  and  concluded  that  further
attempts at rehabilitation were not  appropriate  in  this  case.   He
directed that the applicant be  discharged  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge as soon as  possible.   On  5  December
2001, the applicant was discharged with an under honorable  conditions
(general) discharge because of misconduct.  He had served  1  year,  9
months and 27 days on active duty.  A  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code of 2B was assigned.

Applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge was denied by the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 21 August 2002.  A copy of the
AFDRB hearing record is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the  discharge  authority.   Therefore,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that if the
28CES squadron provided the  full,  complete  and  true  reports  from
Social Actions and the  Base  IG  that  should  be  more  than  enough
evidence.  As a matter of fact he filed two complaints to the Base  IG
within three weeks.  Every single time he tried to  file  a  complaint
against his squadron they tried to retaliate in a very  harsh  manner.
Whether anyone wants to believe him or not, they provoked most of  the
confusion.  His supervisor had a mental disorder and he just  relieved
all his stress on him on a weekly, but  mostly  daily  basis.   If  he
weren’t stationed at that base, there was  a  great  chance  that  his
supervisor would have relieved his stress on  someone  else.   If  you
read his Social Actions report, you should be very surprised.   Never,
under any circumstances should any individual, regardless  of  his/her
rank  treat  a  person  so  harshly.   It’s  just  flat  out  illegal.
According to the Air Force handbook, there definitely was some form of
discrimination occurring.  He would like to  know  why  him?   It  was
almost as if the Air Force was playing a big joke on him.  He was very
shocked when he was discharged.

He states the real and main reason he  was  discharged  from  the  Air
Force was because he  was  planting  too  much  evidence  against  his
squadron  and  they  understood  that  they  could  not  control   his
supervisor.  He knows the Air Force has to protect  its  NCOs  and  to
never admit to their mistakes to airmen, but  he  is  asking  the  Air
Force to account for their mistakes.  How much longer does he have  to
suffer torture and punishment because of his squadron’s failures?   He
hopes that he made some type of positive difference for the airmen and
future airmen at Ellsworth AFB.

The applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant believes that  his
discharge is too harsh based on information filed with the base Social
Actions Office and representatives of the Inspector General.   We  are
aware that the personnel at the applicant’s former base of  assignment
were unable to locate any Social Actions complaints submitted  by  the
applicant.  We have also reviewed the available information pertaining
to  the  applicant’s  IG  complaint  and  note  that  the  applicant’s
assertion of reprisal was not substantiated.  Therefore, we  are  left
with the applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and reprisal.
 Accordingly, in the absence of evidence by the applicant which  would
lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file  is
erroneous, that his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  that  his
commander’s  abused  their  discretionary  authority,   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 this application  on  19
March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Inspector
               General File, Reference No. EJA010039,
               dated 4 December 2001 (withdrawn).
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Oct 02.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Oct 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair