RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02522
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was due  to  his  criminal  conviction.   As  a  result  of  a
malfunction on a pay phone, he was able  to  make  long  distance  telephone
calls without  being  charged.   He  never  believed  he  was  committing  a
criminal act but was charged with theft of telephone  services.   The  Court
took his  case  under  advisement  for  two  years;  and  after  payment  of
restitution and court costs the case was  dismissed.   He  recently  learned
that he has no criminal conviction as a result of  the  dismissal.   He  was
only 19 years of age at the time, and did not  realize  the  seriousness  of
his actions.  He believes that the court took  into  account  his  age,  the
nature of the alleged crime, and his clean record  in  deferring  sentencing
and dismissing his case.  He sincerely hopes that the Board will take  these
same conditions into consideration while deciding his case.  He believes  he
served his country honorably and his job performance was not a problem.

His  post-service  activities  as  a  family  man,  and  a  partner   in   a
construction company demonstrate his excellent reputation  for  honesty  and
integrity.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  statement,  a
supportive statement and a copy of his criminal report from North Dakota.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air  Force  for  a
period of 4 years.  During this period  of  service,  he  was  progressively
promoted to airman  (E-2).   He  received  two  Airman  Performance  Reports
closing 3 February 1984 and 29 May 1984, in which the overall  ratings  were
8 and 3 respectively (highest rating a 9).

On 13 September 1983, the commander issued a  letter  of  reprimand  to  the
applicant for speeding, a moving traffic violation.

On 11 October 1983, the commander  issued  a  letter  of  reprimand  to  the
applicant for operating a government motor vehicle in a reckless manner.

On 27 December 1983, the commander issued  a  letter  of  reprimand  to  the
applicant for being arrested on a warrant charging him  with  the  theft  of
services from Northwestern Bell Telephone Company.  He was  charged  with  a
Class C felony for $525.12 of unpaid telephone charges and was  incarcerated
in the Grand Forks County Jail.

On 27 January 1984, the commander issued a letter  of  admonishment  to  the
applicant for improper backing with his personal motor vehicle resulting  in
an accident.

On 28 February 1984, the applicant  was  notified  that  the  commander  was
recommending him for a general discharge.  The reason for the discharge  was
for a civilian  conviction.   On  16 March  1984,  the  discharge  authority
recommended the general discharge be suspended for 12 months  and  that  the
applicant be given an opportunity  for  probation  and  rehabilitation.   On
22 March 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt and accepted the offer  of
probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 May 1984, applicant  accepted  an  Article  15  for  wrongful  use  of
marijuana on diverse occasions during the month of  April  1984.   For  this
offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman  basic,  ordered  to  forfeit
$120 per month for two months and ordered into correctional  custody  for  a
period of 30 days; however, the portion of the punishment pertaining  to  30
days of correctional custody was suspended.

On 31 May 1984, the  commander  recommended  that  the  discharge  authority
vacate the suspended discharge.  On 22 June 1984,  the  discharge  authority
approved the recommended separation  and  directed  that  the  applicant  be
discharged with a general discharge.  On 26 June  1984,  the  applicant  was
discharged  in  the  grade  of  airman  with  a  general  (under   honorable
conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 4 months and  23  days,
of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  states  that  the
applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors  in  the  discharge
processing.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  file,  the  discharge   was
consistent with the requirements of the discharge  regulation  (See  Exhibit
C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 August 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review  and  comment.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  While it  is  true  that  the  applicant’s
separation document indicates  he  was  discharged  because  of  a  civilian
conviction, we believe it must be noted  that  the  approved  discharge  was
initially suspended  pending  his  successful  completion  of  a  period  of
probation and rehabilitation.  Less than 60 days  after  the  discharge  was
suspended, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment  for  wrongful  use
of marijuana, which is considered a serious act of  misconduct.   While  the
applicant believes his service  characterization  is  harsh,  we  believe  a
general discharge (under honorable conditions)  was  munificient  given  the
information in his discharge case file.  Other than the  assertions  of  the
applicant, documentary evidence has not been provided which  would  lead  us
to believe that  his  discharge  was  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing directive under which it was effected, that his commanders  abused
their discretionary authority, or that  the  information  contained  in  the
discharge case file was factually incorrect.   Applicant’s  contentions  and
supporting statement were duly noted. However, based on the short period  of
time he served on active duty and the  limited  evidence  provided,  in  our
estimation, the evidence submitted  is  not  of  a  sufficient  quality  and
quantity to warrant the approval of the requested relief based on  clemency.
 In view of this fact and in the absence of more expansive evidence  by  the
applicant attesting to a successful post-service  adjustment  in  the  years
after his discharge from the Air  Force,  we  are  not  inclined  to  extend
clemency in this case.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  AFBCMR
Docket No. 02-02522, in Executive Session on  6  February  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                 Ms. Rita Looney, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 July 2002 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 August 2002.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2002.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair