RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00556

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The infractions were minor infractions that were childish  in  nature.
He was very young when he enlisted.  Since his departure from the  Air
Force, he has been limited in his career  possibilities  due  to  that
discharge.  He has been in no trouble at  all.   The  reason  for  the
request is he wants to start a career in Law Enforcement as  his  wife
has done.  Before he applies for the job, he would like his  discharge
changed.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD  Form  293,
Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for
a period of 4 years on 8 July  1980.   He  was  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-12,  (frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable
nature with military authorities) from the Air Force on  22  September
1982 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served
2 years, 2 months and 15 days of total active duty service.

On 7 September 1982, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for discharge because of his frequent involvement  of
a discreditable nature with military  authorities.   Reasons  for  the
action:  Letter of Reprimand (LOR), 19  March  1982,  for  failure  to
follow checklist procedures; LOR, 5 June  1981,  for  alleged  peeping
tom; LOR, 16 June 1982, for failure to observe military  courtesy  and
violation of AFR 35-10; two Articles 15, 18 February 1982, for storing
fireworks  in  his  dorm  room,  and  punishment  included   suspended
reduction to airman, 15 days correctional custody and $100  fine;  and
Article 15, 9 August 1982, for dereliction in performance of duty, and
punishment included reduction to airman,  forfeiture  of  $144  for  1
month and 14 days extra duty.  Additionally, he was counseled numerous
times, all of which are well documented, without  improvement  in  his
behavior.   His  commander  appointed  an   evaluation   officer   who
interviewed the applicant and reviewed his  records.   He  recommended
nonretention, a general discharge  and  did  not  recommend  probation
rehabilitation (P&R).  Member consulted  with  counsel  and  submitted
statements.  The base legal office reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support the discharge and they did not recommend
P&R.  The Discharge Authority approved the  discharge  and  ordered  a
general discharge without P&R.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the  documentation
in the file the discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
the discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors
or   injustices   that   occurred   in   the   discharge   processing.
Additionally, he provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records  remain  the  same
and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 March 2003, for review and comment.  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 that failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting an  upgrade  in  his
discharge.   The  records  reflect  that   the   commander   initiated
administrative actions  based  on  information  he  determined  to  be
reliable and that administrative actions were  properly  accomplished.
The  applicant  was  afforded  all  rights  granted  by  statute   and
regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented  that  the
commander abused his discretionary authority  when  he  initiated  the
discharge action, and since we find no abuse  of  that  authority,  we
find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  The  only  other
basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of  his  discharge  would  be
clemency.  However, applicant  has  failed  to  provide  documentation
pertaining to his post service conduct.   Therefore, in the absence of
this documentation, 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 a 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  BC-2003-
00556 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
                 Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 10 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.





      ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
      Panel Chair