RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02523
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and he receive financial benefits for medical and housing.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes it to be  unjust  and  could  benefit  from  the  medical,
financial and educational rewards that he does not have.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 September 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On  18  May  1987,  the  applicant's  commander  recommended  he   be
discharged for misconduct.  The specific reasons  for  the  discharge
action were:

      a.  On 18 February 1986, the  applicant  failed  to  remain  in
uniform when away from the dormitory, to remain on station as a Phase
I student, and got into a fight while drinking.   For  this  offense,
the applicant received a  Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  on  18  February
1986.

      b.  The applicant on 20 August 1986 reported four and  one-half
hours late for work.  For this misconduct, he received  a  letter  of
counseling (LOC) on 21 August 1986.

      c.  The applicant received an  LOC  on  9  September  1986  for
failing to meet a mandatory formation on 5 September 1986.

      d.  On 1  October  1986,  the  applicant  failed  to  meet  the
requirements of AFR 35-10.  For this misconduct, he received  an  LOC
on 20 October 1986.

      e.  On 8  October  1986,  the  applicant  failed  to  go  to  a
scheduled appointment after assuring SSgt G. that the he  would  make
the  appointment.  The applicant  received  an  LOR  dated 8  October
1986 for this offense.

      f.  On or about 16 October 1986 to on or about 29 October 1986,
the applicant allowed his personal affairs to interfere with his duty
requirements in that he abused the privilege of free time  off.   For
this misconduct, the applicant was counseled on 29 October 1986.

      g.  On 3 December 1986, the applicant failed to obey  an  order
or regulation by driving an R-5  refueling  truck  off  a  restricted
area.  For this misconduct the applicant received  an  LOR  dated  12
December 1986.

      h.  The applicant on 25 April 1987, operated  a  vehicle  under
the influence of  alcohol.   For  this  misconduct,  he  received  an
Article 15 on 5 May 1987.

The commander in his recommendation for  discharge  recommended  the
applicant be discharged with service characterized as general.   The
commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation  indicating
the applicant’s  repeated  acts  of  misconduct,  after  progressive
attempts at rehabilitation,  evidence  his  lack  of  rehabilitation
potential.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

On 20 May 1987, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his
right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 28 May 1987 in which the staff judge
advocate recommended the applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 4 June 1987, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 12 June 1987, in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  in
accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern conduct  prejudicial
to good order and discipline).  He served 1 year, 8  months  and  16
days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
29 August 2003, for review and response.  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 of 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
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  The applicant has not  provided  persuasive
evidence in support of his request to  have  his  discharge  upgraded.
The applicant has not established that the processing of the discharge
and the characterization of the discharge were  inappropriate  or  not
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  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-
2003-02523 in Executive Session on 7 October 2003 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Aug 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.




                                        ROBERT S. BOYD
                                        Panel Chair