RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00629
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 110.02
                         110.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His records be updated to reflect awards that he received.

3.  He be reinstated into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant requested a copy of  his  service  records  and  noticed  numerous
errors.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, which  has  not  been  used
since World War II, negated automatic  upgrade  of  his  discharge  and  his
chances for reenlistment.  While stationed at Elmendorf AFB,  AK  from  July
1980 to July 1981, his squadron was awarded  the  Peacetime  Service  Ribbon
but the certificate is not in his records, nor  is  his  M-16  Qualification
and Marksmanship Medal.  His records  contain  an  Article  15  for  falling
asleep on post, an Article 15 for bounced checks, and three Article 15s  for
unauthorized reading material.  However, his records  did  not  contain  his
training material for upgrade to sergeant or the  letter  submitted  by  the
bank reversing the bounced check charges because there was another James  W.
Smith with an account number one digit apart from his.  His records did  not
indicate that the vehicle he was in had holes  in  the  floorboard  allowing
exhaust to enter into the vehicle resulting in the Article  15  for  falling
asleep on post.   He  was  taken  to  the  command  center  instead  of  the
hospital.  He was taken to the hospital  four  hours  later.   Had  he  been
taken to the hospital immediately,  the  carbon  monoxide  would  have  been
detectable.  When he first arrived at Elmendorf, he had a  few  pay  periods
in which he did not receive the correct amount of pay.  He got  married  and
had to work part-time jobs after his duty hours  to  support  his  wife  and
himself.  This was the cause of the other Article 15s for falling asleep  on
post.

In support of his request applicant  provided  a  personal  statement.   His
complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  24  Mar  80.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman  first  class  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 7 May 80.   On  26  May  81,
the applicant was notified by his commander that he  was  recommending  that
he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12,  paragraph
2-4c (apathy and defective attitude).  The specific reasons for this  action
were  that  on  11 Dec  80,  the  applicant  received  an  Article  15   for
dereliction of duty; on 2 Apr 81, he received an Article 15 for  failing  to
report and wrongful use and possession  of  marijuana;  an  7  May  81,  his
suspension of nonjudicial punishment was vacated for  dereliction  of  duty;
on 26 Sep 80, he was counseled for mailing to meet a  required  appointment;
on 5 Apr 81, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to  report
to guard mount; on 5 May 81, he received an LOC for a  35-10  violation;  on
13 May 81, he received an LOC for failing to  provide  a  phone  number  for
recall use; and on 19 Jun 81, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for  writing  six
bad checks was added to his discharge case file.   He  was  advised  of  his
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  17
Jun 81.  After consulting counsel, applicant elected to submit  a  statement
on his own behalf.  On 3 Jun  81,  an  Evaluation  Officer  interviewed  the
applicant and recommended that the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force with a general discharge.  He further recommended that  the  applicant
be considered for rehabilitation.  In a legal review of the case,  the  wing
staff judge advocate, found the  case  legally  sufficient  and  recommended
that he be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge.   Since  the  applicant
received an LOR subsequent to  the  evaluation,  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended that he be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.   On
1 Jul 81, the discharge authority directed that  he  be  discharged  without
probation and rehabilitation and issued  a  general  discharge  certificate.
Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 2 Jul 81.  He served 1  year,
3 months, and 9 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the case be denied as untimely.  If considered on  its
merits, denial is recommended.  JAJM states that by electing to resolve  the
allegation  in   the   nonjudicial   forum,   the   applicant   placed   the
responsibility to decide whether he had  committed  the  offenses  with  his
commander.  While he raised  a  defense  to  the  first  Article  15  action
(carbon monoxide poisoning) he apparently elected not to raise this  at  the
time as illustrated by his election  not  to  make  a  presentation  to  his
commander.  He chose not to  appeal  the  commander's  determination,  which
prevented a timely look by another commander at the  issues  he  now  raises
over 22 years later.   There  is  no  information  available  regarding  the
offenses.  He had the opportunity to contest the allegations at the time  of
the Article 15 proceedings.  There is  no  basis  for  concluding  that  the
commander's findings were either arbitrary of capricious,  and  they  should
not be disturbed.  The BCMR process is not intended to  simply  second-guess
the  appropriateness  of  judgments  of  field  commanders.   The   evidence
presented by the applicant is insufficient  to  warrant  setting  aside  the
Article 15 action.  The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear  error
or injustice  related  to  the  nonjudicial  punishment  action.   The  JAJM
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any
errors  of  injustices  in  the  discharge  processing.   Additionally,   he
provided no facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.   The  DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states that there is no such  award  as
the Peacetime Service Ribbon.  There are no longer  badges  or  bars  (Army)
awarded for Qualification of Marksman  status  on  the  firing  range.   The
Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon was established on 28 Aug  62  and  is
awarded to personnel who qualify as expert with either  the  M-16  rifle  or
issue handgun at an Air Force firing range.  An AF Form 22 would  have  been
annotated  and  signed  by  firing  range  personnel  for  updating  of  his
personnel records to reflect award  of  the  ribbon  (there  is  no  medal).
There is no indication in his records showing that he  fired  expert  on  an
Air Force  firing  range  and  he  did  not  provide  any  documentation  to
substantiate his claim.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  30
May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  that  would  warrant  upgrade  of   the
characterization of his service or reinstatement into  the  Air  Force.   We
see no evidence of an error in this case and after careful consideration  of
the applicant's request and the available evidence of  record,  we  are  not
persuaded that he has been the victim of  an  injustice.   In  our  opinion,
given the multiplicity of the offenses he committed against the  good  order
and discipline of the service, and the short period  of  time  in  which  he
served, the characterization of his discharge and the decision to  discharge
him from the Air Force was in compliance with  the  appropriate  directives.
With regard to his request for award of the  Peacetime  Service  Ribbon  and
the M-16 Qualification and Marksmanship Medal, we  agree  with  the  opinion
and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility
regarding this matter and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that he has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find
no 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-BC-
2003-00629 in Executive Session on 29 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 10 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair