RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02828
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 March 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the only error in that period of his service life was
the fact that he was young  and  married  to  someone  who  could  not
conform to the military way of life and he was  too  inexperienced  to
deal with the resulting problems.  Since then he has grown, raised his
children on his own at times and always lived a good  life.   He  owes
that to the Air Force.

Applicant does not submit any documents in support of the appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 November 1981 for  a
period of four years.

On 29 October 1987, the commander notified the applicant that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for misconduct consisting of
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The  applicant  was
further advised an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
would be recommended.  Bases for the action were:  (1) He received two
verbal counselings on 13 March 1987 for failure to keep his  NCO  Club
account current and on 7 August 1987,  along  with  a  Memorandum  for
Record for not being in compliance with AFR 35-10.   (2)  He  received
two letters of reprimand (LORs) on 30 March 1987 and 7 August 1987 for
failure to go.  (3) On 14 August 1987, he was placed  on  the  control
roster for writing bad checks totaling over  $135.00.   On  5  October
1987, he received an Article 15 for wrongful possession  of  marijuana
and drug paraphernalia.  Punishment  consisted  of  reduction  to  the
grade of airman first class and forfeiture of $204.00.  The  applicant
acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  of  discharge  and  after
consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit statements in
his own  behalf.   The  base  legal  office  found  the  case  legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant receive
an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  without  probation
and  rehabilitation  (P&R).   The  discharge  authority  approved  the
separation and directed that applicant be  discharged  with  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force  on  17  November  1987
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(misconduct -  pattern  of  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and
discipline), with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.
He had served 1 year, 2 months and 13 days on active duty.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  considered  and  denied
applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge  on  2 November  1994.
The board found that neither evidence of record nor that  provided  by
the applicant substantiates an inequity  or  impropriety  which  would
justify a  change  of  discharge.   In  accordance  with  policy,  the
applicant was advised of his right to submit  an  application  to  the
AFBCMR.

A copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief  is  attached  at
Exhibit B.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on  file  in  the  master
personnel records, the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.    The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 October 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On  18  October
2005, the applicant was invited to provide information  pertaining  to
his activities since leaving the  service,  also  an  FBI  Report  was
requested.

Applicant submitted a letter explaining his activities leading to  and
after his separation from the Air Force.  In summary, he  states  that
he worked as a Security Guard for a City College in January 1998.   He
wanted to attend college, but he did not want to deprive his  children
of the attention they  deserved.   In  the  summer  of  1998,  he  was
employed  as  a  truck  driver  for   a   Pickling   Company.    After
approximately four years, he was employed  by  a  restaurant.   During
those years, he applied for many civil  service  jobs.   In  September
1992, he was hired for New York City Transit Authority as a conductor.
 Now serving his thirteenth year, he presently works  overnight  as  a
train  operator.   He  has  been  able  to  relocate  his  family   to
Pennsylvania.  Over the  years,  he  has  been  able  to  oversee  the
progression of his children, through academics and athletics.   Today,
he is happily married with five  children  and  all  of  them  are  in
college.  He appeals today in hopes of being able to set  yet  another
example for his children by showing them that through  any  obstacles,
you can overcome and be successful.

A decision to grant him an  honorable  discharge  to  share  with  his
children, a badge of honor would be greatly appreciated.

Applicant's response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.    We find no impropriety in the  characterization  of  applicant’s
discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not  find  persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or  that  applicant
was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of
discharge.  We conclude, therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was  appropriate  to
the existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant’s overall quality of service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence  related  to  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02828 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 7 Oct 05 and
                 18 Oct 05.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Oct 05.




                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                             Panel Chair