RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03097
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He knows he was wrong and should have left the military;  however,  he
was told his discharge  would  automatically  be  upgraded  after  six
months.

No supporting documents  were  submitted.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 25 Feb
82.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class,
with an effective date and date of rank of 25 Feb 83.

Applicant's APR profile follows (oldest to most recent):  8, 9 and 5.

On 7 Jun 84, the applicant received notification  that  he  was  being
recommended  for  discharge  due   to   a   pattern   of   misconduct.
Specifically, numerous incidents of domestic disturbances; failing  to
go and going from his place of duty without authority; failing to  pay
just debts; writing bad checks  and  violating  a  lawful  order.   He
received a general discharge on 6 Jul 84 under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10 (misconduct - pattern discreditable involvement with military or
civil authorities).  He had completed a total of 2 years, 4 months and
8 days and was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the
time of discharge.

Applicant's request for upgrade of  his  discharge  to  honorable  was
denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 29 Nov 85.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS states that there are no regulations or  directives
that allow an automatic upgrade of a discharge within  six  months  or
ever.  The applicant 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.   The
HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  apologizes  for  his
behavior during the period of time he spent in the Air Force.  He  has
matured and has changed considerably.  He would also like  to  include
in his record some of the things he did right while serving on  active
duty.  Specifically, he excelled  in  becoming  an  Emergency  Medical
Technician -- he was of some value to his units while working  at  the
Regional Medical Center at Clark AB, Philippines.  At the time of  his
discharge, he left the Philippines with his five-month-old son.  There
was more to the discharge than his records reveal.  He just wanted out
of  the  service  as  quickly  as  possible  and  did  not  fight  the
allegations.  Regarding the domestic disturbances and the assault on a
Filipino citizen, that was an allegation not proven and was the result
of his son’s mother.  As to not showing up for an appointed  duty,  as
he recalls it was a schedule shift change not  approved  by  the  ward
sergeant; however, another airman agreed to cover for him but did  not
show up.  The bad checks were definitely his fault.  He was told  that
he would get an upgrade in six months automatically.  He  did  nothing
to check into that until recently and found out it was not so.  He  is
sorry for some bad things that had happened, but feels the good should
level out the less than good.   He asks that the Board please  upgrade
his status.  In support of his request, the applicant  submits  copies
of two of his Airman  Performance  Reports  (APRs).   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, 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 error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file
was erroneous, his substantial rights were  violated,  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted  a
better characterization than the one he received.  After reviewing the
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge, we believe the evidence of record  supports  his  discharge
for misconduct.  While the applicant’s duty performance was,  for  the
most part, good, the multiplicity and seriousness of  the  infractions
he committed against the good order  and  discipline  of  the  service
provided  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge he received.  With regards  to  the  applicant’s
assertion that he  was  told  his  discharge  would  automatically  be
upgraded after 6 months, the appropriate Air Force office  of  primary
responsibility indicated that there are no regulations  or  directives
that allow an automatic upgrade of a discharge.  We therefore  believe
there  may  have  been  a  misunderstanding  concerning  this   issue.
Notwithstanding the information the applicant may have been  provided,
we do not find that the passage of time, alone, provides a  sufficient
basis  to  warrant  upgrading  a  service  characterization  based  on
clemency.  In view of  the  above,  the  applicant’s  request  is  not
favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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  in
Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 9 Nov 02, w/atchs.



                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                                   Panel Chair