RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02367
            INDEX CODE:  A67.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Staff Judge Advocate’s  statement  concerning  his  appeal  of  an
Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to  another  airman
who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him.

There were management problems in his  branch  that  resulted  in  his
supervisor being relieved from his duty.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided two  statements  from
his military personnel records and a DD Form 293, Application for  the
Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of  the  United
States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 May 83 for a  period
of four years in the grade airman basic.

On 12 Feb 85, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending that he be discharged for misconduct based on  a  pattern
of minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons were that  on  25  Jan
84,  he  was  given  a  Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)  on   what   his
responsibilities were in the Air Force; on 31 Jan 84, he was given  an
LOC for reporting late to work; on 15 Feb 84, he was given an LOC  for
repeated tardiness; on 13 Mar 84, he was given  an  LOC  for  repeated
tardiness; on 10 Apr 84, he was  given  an  LOC  for  failing  a  room
inspection; on 16 Apr 84, he received an Article 15 for failure to  go
on 11 Apr 84; on 27 Sep 84, he was nonrecommended  for  promotion  for
failure to accept his military responsibilities; and, that on  17  Jan
85, he received an Article 15 and a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
failure to go to the Life Support Section on 14 Jan 85.  The applicant
was advised of his rights in the matter and that a  general  discharge
would be recommended.

On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found  no  errors
or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that  the
applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 26 Feb 85, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 28 Feb 85, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions)  and  furnished  a
general discharge.  He was credited with one year,  nine  months,  and
four days of active service.

On 5 Jun 87, the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and  denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  upgrade  of  his  general
discharge to honorable.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report,
which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial   indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation in the file, the applicant’s  discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.
In their view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence  and  did
not identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge
processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade  of  the
discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  29
Aug 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

By letter, dated 9 Oct  03,  the  Board's  staff  requested  that  the
applicant provide  information  pertaining  to  his  activities  since
leaving the service.  As of this date, no response has  been  received
by this office (Exhibit F).

A copy of the FBI Report was forwarded to applicant on 6  Nov  03  for
review and response.  As of this date, no response has  been  received
by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The evidence of record indicates
that the applicant was involuntarily discharged for  misconduct.   The
applicant’s contentions regarding the Staff  Judge  Advocate  and  his
branch, as well as the documents submitted in support of  his  appeal,
were duly noted.  However, after a thorough review of  the  facts  and
circumstances of this case, we find no evidence which has shown to our
satisfaction that his  discharge  was  improper  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the discharge directive under  which  it  was  effected.
Furthermore,  due  to  the  lack  of  documentation   concerning   his
activities after leaving the service, we are not inclined to recommend
upgrading his discharge based on clemency at this time.   In  view  of
the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  the
contrary, we conclude that no  basis  exists  to  recommend  favorable
action on the  applicant’s  request  that  his  general  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-02367 in Executive Session on 13 Jan 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Oct 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Nov 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair