RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03548
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  VFW

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had an excellent service record except for a few minor disciplinary
infractions.  When these minor incidences occurred he was  very  young
and immature.  He feels the general discharge was too harsh.   He  has
not been in any trouble  since  leaving  the  military  and  has  been
steadily employed and attending college.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 December 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
as an airman basic for a period of four years.

On 13 January 1988, the applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to initiate discharge action against him for Minor Disciplinary
Infractions.  The commander  recommended  a  general  discharge.   The
reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.  On 29 April 1986, the applicant drove a government vehicle
at an excessive speed on the QRA taxiway.  For  this  misconduct  he
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

      b.  The applicant received an LOC on 11  March  1987  for  not
properly performing his duties on 10 March 1987.

      c.  The applicant, on 13 July 1987,  did  not  adhere  to  his
responsibilities as a member of  the  United  States  Air  Force  as
evidenced by the LOC dated 17 July 1987.

      d.  The applicant received an LOC for not reporting to duty on
time on 22 July 1987.

      e.  The applicant, on or about  14  August  1987,  operated  a
vehicle with an expired registration and nonvalid  USAFEUR  driver’s
license.  For this misconduct he received an LOR.

      f.  On 18 November 1987, the applicant failed  to  report  for
duty on time, he received an LOC.

      g.  The applicant received an Article 15 for being  drunk  and
disorderly  on  25  November  1987.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman basic,  forfeiture  of  $200,  30  days
extra duty and restriction to base.

      h.  On 5 January 1988, the applicant jeopardized the safety of
equipment and personnel by playing  a  portable  radio  in  a  fuels
environment.  For this misconduct the applicant received a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR).

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

On 13 January 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter
of notification and invoked his right to submit  statements  on  his
behalf.  On 25 January  1988,  the  applicant  submitted  a  written
statement that he was not going to submit statements.

The commander  indicated  in  the  recommendation  for  discharge  the
following actions were taken in an attempt to rehabilitate or  correct
the applicant.  The applicant was reprimanded, served an  Article  15,
the First Sergeant counseled the applicant; and  he  was  referred  to
Mental Health and Social Actions for evaluation.   The  commander  did
not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 1 February 1988  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a  general
(under  honorable  conditions)   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

On 23 February 1988, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 29 February 1988, in the grade of airman
basic with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  in
accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (Misconduct   -   Pattern   of   Minor
Disciplinary Infractions).  He  served a  total of 2 years, 1  month
and 10 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB denied his request on 23
March 1989.

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.  Therefore, 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 reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  when  he
entered the Air Force he had just gotten out of high  school  and  was
not sure of what he wanted to  do  with  his  life.   He  thought  the
military would give him a chance to meet some challenges away from the
security of his home and it would also give him time to  decide  on  a
career.

A complete copy of the  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit G.

Applicant’s counsel reviewed the application and Air Force  evaluation
and concurs with the applicant’s contention that his discharge  should
be upgraded (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.

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-
03548 in Executive Session on 25 March 2003 under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jan 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 3 Feb 03,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel’s Response, undated.




                                        ROBERT S. BOYD
                                        Panel Chair