RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02385
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.  The Narrative Reason for Separation be changed on  his  DD
Form 214 and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was stressed and depressed due to his domestic  situation.  No  one
ever attempted to identify his alleged misconduct  as  stress  related
because of his domestic issues.  His commander  chose  to  punish  him
rather than rendering a solution.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 January 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as
an airman basic for a period of four years.

On 5 September 1985,  the  applicant's  commander  recommended  he  be
discharged for a pattern of misconduct, discreditable involvement with
military or civil authorities.  The reasons for the  discharge  action
were:

      a.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 29 March 1985  for
uttering a dishonored check on or about 16 December  1984  at  Dyess
AFB.  His punishment consisted of 30 days  of  correctional  custody
and a suspended reduction to airman basic.

      b.  Uttered a dishonored check on or about 10 January 1985  at
Abilene, Texas.  For this infraction the applicant received a LOR on
27 February 1985.

      c.  The applicant was arrested by civilian authorities  on  or
about 25 February 1985 at Dyess AFB for  the  offense  of  theft  by
check, for this infraction he received a LOR on 28 February 1985.

      d.  The applicant  received a  letter of  reprimand (LOR) on 1
August 1985 for a dishonored check on or about 28 June 1985 at Dyess
AFB.

The commander advised  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 6 September 1985, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived
his right to submit a statement.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant was repeatedly  counseled  and  issued  several  forms  of
administrative actions in  an  effort  to  bring  his  (applicant’s)
behavior in  compliance  to  Air  Force  standards.   The  commander
further recommended the applicant be  discharged  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 9 September 1985 in which the  staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On  11  September  1985,  the  discharge  authority   approved   the
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 13  September  1985,  in  the  grade  of
airman with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge,  in
accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (misconduct  -  pattern  discreditable
involvement with military or civil authorities).  He served a  total
of 1 year, 7 months and 19 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge upgraded to honorable.  They denied his request on 18 June
1987.

The applicant submitted a request to the  Air  Force  Personnel  Board
(AFPB) to change his reenlistment code.  The AFPB denied  his  request
on 18 June 1987.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 D).

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility
code of "2B," indicating the member was separated with  a  general  or
under other than  honorable  conditions  discharge  which  is  correct
(Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report  were  forwarded
to the applicant on 25 October 2002 and 21 January 2003, respectively,
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.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
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.

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  issue(s)   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 02-
02385  in  Executive  Session  on 7 January 2003  and 21 February 2003
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 Oct 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Oct 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jan 03.




                                        PEGGY E. GORDON
                                        Panel Chair