RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01739
                 INDEX CODE:  108.09
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty in the grade of captain  with  compensation
for lost wages and remission of his debt owed due  to  overpayment  by  the
government.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was dealt an injustice because all of the evidence  provided  in  support
of his defense for two separate incidents over a four-year  period  was  not
taken into  consideration.   Specifically  information  concerning  an  AWOL
charge that he was alleged to have committed  while  assigned  to  Barksdale
Air Force, LA.

In support of this application, the applicant submits a personal  statement,
three character reference statements, copies of two Security  Forces  police
blotters, a copy of an Alexandria, VA police blotter, and  copies  of  other
documents pertaining to his case.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned an officer in the Reserve of  the  Air  Force
on 7 February 1997.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  captain
with an effective date and date of rank of 7 February 2001.

On 25 July 2001, applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
initiating action in accordance with AFI 36-3206,  Administrative  Discharge
Procedures for Commissioned Officers.  The reason for the  action  was  that
the applicant received nonjudicial punishment in March 1998 for leaving  his
duty section without  permission,  being  absent  without  leave  (AWOL)  on
29 November  1997  and  in  November  1997;  wrongfully   and   dishonorably
violating a car rental agreement by informing the agent he  was  driving  to
Dallas TX when in fact, he drove to VA; between 11 May 2000 and 17  December
2000, he failed to obey a lawful regulation by dating  an  enlisted  member;
and on 12 January 2001, he made an official false statement by  telling  his
supervisor he was in Raleigh, NC, when in fact he was at Shaw AFB,  SC.   At
the time applicant was a probationary  officer  (less  than  five  years  of
active commissioned service).  Because the  show  cause  authority  and  his
commander recommended a general discharge, he was not entitled  to  a  Board
of Inquiry  (BOI).   Member  consulted  with  legal  counsel  and  submitted
statements for consideration; however, he declined to submit a  resignation.
 The 9AF/JA reviewed the case and found it  legally  sufficient  to  support
the discharge.  As recommended by AF/JA, DPPRS forwarded  the  case  to  the
Air Force Personnel Board through the  AF/JAG.   On  14  January  2002,  the
Secretary of the  Air  Force  Designee  ordered  a  general  discharge  with
recoupment of the pro rata share of the cost of tuition assistance.  He  was
discharged on 24 January 2002 with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  He served 4 years, 11 months  and  17  days  as  a  commissioned
officer.  He had previously served 10 years, 6 months  and  12  days  as  an
enlisted member.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPPRS recommends denial.   Based  upon  the  documentation  on  file,  DPPRS
believes the discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge process and has provided no facts warranting any  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial of the applicant's request to cancel his  out
of service debt.   The  applicant  separated  on  24 January  2002  with  an
overpayment of $8,951.26.  Through administrative  error  the  member's  pay
account was not  closed  until  April  2002.   He  received  direct  deposit
payments on February 15, March 1, March  15,  and  April  1,  2002  totaling
$7,909.03.   Garnishments  were  paid  to  North  Carolina   Child   Support
Division, on the member's behalf, in the amount of $425.00  each  month  for
March and April 2002.

The applicant's entitlements total $7,648.05 less deductions  of  $4,256.26,
resulting in $3,391.79 due to  him.   However,  payments  total  $12,343.05,
resulted in an $8,951.26 overpayment.  The Remission and Waiver Branch  were
contacted and they indicated that if they receive  the  applicant's  waiver,
they would recommend a waiver of $192.23 and denial of  $8,759.03  based  on
criteria provided in 10 U.S.C. section 2774.

DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force Evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  3
July 2003 for review and  response.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit E).

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice that would warrant  corrective  action.   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.   Evidence  has  not
been provided which would lead us to  believe  that  the  actions  taken  to
affect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations, that the decision  to  discharge  him  was  based  on
factors other than his own documented pattern of  misconduct,  or  that  his
commander abused his discretionary authority in doing so.  Since we find  no
error or injustice with respect to his discharge action, we do  not  believe
favorable consideration of his request for compensation for lost  wages  and
remission of his indebtedness  is  warranted.   We  note  that  the  Defense
Finance and Accounting Service has indicated that if the applicant  were  to
apply for a remission of his indebtedness it would  be  recommended  that  a
portion of his request would receive a favorable  recommendation.   However,
he must first  apply  for  a  remission  of  his  indebtedness  through  the
appropriate  channels.   Therefore,  we  agree   with   the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
1739 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 03, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 26 Jun 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair