RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03363
            INDEX NUMBER:  A49.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of discharge be changed from general (under  honorable
conditions) to honorable.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge is unjust.  He is a federal employee  and  would  like
his discharge upgraded in order to receive the  5-point  preference.
He was discharged under Air Force Regulation  39-10,  Administrative
Discharge.  An administrative  discharge  should  not  result  in  a
general discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 2 Oct 85.   On
3  Jun  87,  his  squadron  commander  notified  him  that  he   was
recommending the applicant’s discharge from the  Air  Force  with  a
general discharge for  unsatisfactory  performance.   The  commander
also recommended that the applicant  receive  a  general  discharge.
The reasons for the commander’s actions were:

        a.  On 22  May  87,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for being approximately one hour late for work.

        b.  On 22 May 87, he received an LOC for  leaving  his  duty
section unattended after being told not to do so.

        c.  On 20 May 87, he was counseled by the  Deputy  Commander
for failing his Career Development Course examination.

        d.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC  for  being  two  hours
late to work on 10 May 87.

        e.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC for violations  of  AFR
35-10.

        f.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC for failure to  do  his
assigned tasks.

        g.  On 11 May 87, he received a referral Airman  Performance
Report (APR) with an overall rating of 1.

        h.  On 20 Feb 87, he received an Article 15 for  failure  to
report for duty.  As a result, he was ordered to undergo 30 days  of
correctional custody.

        i.  On 13 Jan 87, he was placed on the  Control  Roster  for
substandard duty performance.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of Notification  on
3 Jun 87.   The  applicant  submitted  a  statement  on  18  Jun  87
contesting the recommended general discharge.

On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to  the
Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air
Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general  discharge.   He
also did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  On 1  Jul  87,
the Installation Staff Judge Advocate found  the  case  against  the
applicant legally sufficient and recommended that  the  Installation
Commander approve a general discharge without  the  opportunity  for
probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  2  Jul  87,  the  Installation
Commander approved the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with
a  general  discharge.   He  also   decided   that   probation   and
rehabilitation was not appropriate in the applicant’s case.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 6 Jul 87  with  a
general discharge under the provision of AFR  39-10  (Unsatisfactory
Performance).  He served 1 year, 9 months and 5 days on active duty.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   Based  on
the documentation in the file, they  believe  that  the  applicant’s
discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation that
he did not experience any problems in his Air Force career until  he
was assigned to his second supervisor.  In support of his assertion,
he provides a copy of an AF Form 77, Letter of  Evaluation,  written
by his first supervisor in the Air Force.  The applicant states that
if the  Board  could  review  the  letters  of  counseling  that  he
received, they would be able to discern that  the  counselings  were
not warranted.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

__________________________________________________________________

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.   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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or injustice.  In addition, the  Board  notes
that the report provided by the applicant to show that  he  did  not
have any problems until he switched supervisors is in fact a  Letter
of  Evaluation  that  was  incorporated  into  his  initial   Airman
Performance Report (APR).  Although the indorsing official that  the
applicant states “had a serious control problem” marked him lower in
two evaluation factors than the rater, the rater had also marked him
down on all performance factors.  Additionally, this initial  report
was concurred with and signed by a second indorser in the  grade  of
chief master sergeant (E-9).  The applicant  has  not  provided  any
supporting evidence beyond his own view of what  took  place  during
his active duty service.  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 Docket Number 02-03363
in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
                                   Panel Chair