RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00317
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since his discharge he has been a model citizen.  He has worked for
legitimate companies and has become a  successful  account  manager
with General Electric Corporation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Oct 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  Prior to the
events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman (Amn/E-
2).  The record contains one airman performance  report  reflecting
an overall evaluation rating of 6.

On 15 Jul  87,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for a pattern of misconduct,
for discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities
and dishonorable failure to pay just  debts.   The  bases  for  the
proposed discharge action were that:

On 10 Nov 86, applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial  for
larceny of property valued at about $150.  His punishment consisted
confinement for six months and forfeiture of $477 pay per month for
six months.

On 8 Jan 87, he was found guilty by  a  discipline  and  adjustment
panel for violating his Christmas home parole by staying a night at
an unauthorized  address  and  not  having  a  phone  number.   His
punishment consisted of 14 consecutive days at  the  one  privilege
level, he perform 2 hours of additional  duty  for  14  consecutive
days and loss of all accrued good time.

On 10 Jun 87,  applicant  was  advised  by  AAFES-Europe  that  his
account was delinquent in the amount of $516 and the total  balance
was due.  On 14 Jul 87, the commander was notified  that  he  still
owed $471.16 on his account.

On 15  Jun  87,  H&R  Sales  Inc.  advised  that  his  account  was
delinquent, with a balance of $380.  The merchandise  was  returned
only after demand for payment.

On 26 Jun 87, the First Sergeant counseled applicant concerning his
failure to pay the debt of $380.  When advised to pay the  debt  or
return the merchandise, he stated that the merchandise was  in  his
hold baggage at his parents’ house and that he  had  contacted  his
father to return the ring to him.  After  the  original  discussion
with the First Sergeant, he returned to his  office  and  told  him
that he had lied about the whereabouts of the ring.  At  that  same
time, applicant advised the First Sergeant that he was  overdue  in
paying his AAFES Deferred Payment Plan and that the squadron  would
probably hear about it soon.  For this  he  received  a  letter  of
counseling.

On 17 Jul 87, after consulting with counsel and having been advised
of his rights, applicant submitted  a  conditional  waiver  of  his
rights associated with an administrative  discharge  board  hearing
contingent on his receipt of a general  discharge.   On  that  same
date, the staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case  to  be  legally
sufficient  to  support  discharge  action  and   recommended   the
conditional waiver be accepted and that the applicant  be  given  a
general  discharge,  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.    On
20 Jul 87, the base commander recommended the  applicant’s  request
for a conditional waiver be accepted.  On 21 Jul 87, the  discharge
authority  accepted  the  conditional  waiver  and   directed   the
applicant be issued a  general  discharge,  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 22 Jul 87, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10,   by   reason   of   Misconduct-Pattern    discreditable
involvement with military and civilian  authorities,  with  service
characterized as general  (under  honorable  conditions).   He  was
credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 26 days of active duty  service
(excludes 5 months and 4 days of lost time due to confinement).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing nor did  he  provide  any
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 10 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an  injustice.   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-00317  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Aug  03,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Leslie Abbott, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair