RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03585
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02; 110.03
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable  and  his  reenlistment  code
(RE) be changed so he can enlist in the Air National Guard.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young at the time of his discharge, and he did not  realize  the
gravity of his situation.  Had he realized the  importance,  he  would  have
fought more diligently for an  honorable  discharge,  and  the  reenlistment
code associated with that type separation.

In support of his request, the applicant has provided a personal  statement,
copies of his separation document, his  enlistment  contract  signed  on  17
July  1978,  and  an  Article  15  punishment.   The  applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 17 for a period of  6  years.   He
was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  (E-3),
effective and with a date of rank  of  17  July  1979.   He  received  three
Airman Performance Reports (APRS, closing 16 July 1979, 16 July 1980, and  9
July 1981), in  which  the  overall  evaluations  were  “8,”  “7”  and  “7,”
respectively.

On 1 August 1979, the applicant was cited in an Incident  Complaint  Report,
for improperly backing a  government  vehicle.   On  2  November  1979,  the
applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to  work  on
four different occasions.  On 22 January 1980, the applicant  was  cited  on
an Incident Complaint Report, for alleged Government Vehicle accident.

On 20 February 1980, the applicant  received  a  record  of  counseling  for
failure to report to work.  On 24  April  1980,  the  applicant  received  a
record of counseling for failure to report to work.

On 8 May 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for  dishonored
checks.  On 2 June 1980, the applicant received a letter,  indorsed  by  his
commander, regarding unpaid telephone charges.

On 3 July 1980, punishment was imposed on the applicant  under  Article  15,
UCMJ, based on his commander’s determination that he  possessed  two  grams,
more or less, of marijuana, on or about 24 June 1980.   He  was  ordered  to
forfeit $50.00 per month for two months and received a  suspended  reduction
in grade to airman basic until  1  December  1980,  on  which  date,  unless
sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.

On 17 October 1980, the  applicant  received  a  record  of  counseling  for
reporting late to duty.  On  21  October  1980,  the  applicant  received  a
Letter of Reprimand for not following technical order instructions during  a
teardown.   On  30  October  1980,  the  applicant  received  a  record   of
counseling for repeated failure to report to work on time.   Based  on  this
same information, his commander issued a Letter  of  Reprimand  to  him  and
placed the applicant’s name on the control roster.  On 5 November 1980,  the
applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to his  duty
section at the prescribed time.

On 10 November 1980, the suspension of the reduction  in  grade  imposed  by
the Article  15  punishment  on  3  July  1980  was  vacated  based  on  the
applicant’s failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed  place  of
duty on or about 4 November 1980.  The applicant reverted to  the  grade  of
airman basic.

On 19 December 1980, the  applicant  received  a  letter  of  reprimand  for
failure to attend a dental examination.  On  30 April  1981,  the  applicant
received a letter of indebtedness  for  delinquent  Consolidated  Open  Mess
account.

On 1 June 1981, the applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment  on
him under Article 15, UCMJ, for operating  a  vehicle  without  a  valid  US
Forces driver’s license.  The applicant was reduced  in  grade  from  airman
first class to airman basic and fined $116.00 for one  month.   In  imposing
the punishment, the commander noted the applicant had failed to  respond  to
the original notification of intent within the three duty days,  as  he  was
required to do.

On 30 July  1981,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Section B, for “frequent involvement of  a  discreditable  nature
with civil or military authorities.”   The  applicant  was  advised  of  his
rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and  waived  his
rights to consult counsel and submit statements  in  his  own  behalf.   The
discharge case file was reviewed by the Acting  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  and
was  found  legally  sufficient.   The  discharge  authority  approved   the
recommended separation on 2 September 1981, and directed that the  applicant
be separated with a general  discharge  certificate  without  the  offer  of
probation and rehabilitation.

On  17  September  1981,  the  applicant  was  discharged  under   honorable
conditions  under  the  provisions   of   AFM   39-12   (Misconduct-Frequent
Involvement of a Discreditable Nature).  He had served  3  years,  2  months
and 1 day on active duty.  An RE-2B (Separated with other than an  honorable
discharge) was assigned.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   DPPRS  stated
that 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.  They also note  that  the  applicant
did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of his discharge, and the request is untimely.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE state that the  applicants  RE  Code  2B,  “Separated  with  a
general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge,” is correct.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  30
January 2004 for review and response.  As of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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 applicant did not  provide  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case file  was  erroneous,
his  rights  were  violated,  his  commanders  abused  their   discretionary
authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than  the
one he received.  After reviewing the  applicant’s  entire  record  and  the
circumstances   surrounding   the   discharge,   we   do   not   find    the
characterization of his discharge unduly harsh  for  the  numerous  offenses
committed.  Although the  applicant’s  age  and  immaturity  may  have  been
contributing factors to his lack of good  judgment,  they  do  not,  in  our
opinion, excuse his misconduct.  Based on the above determination,  we  also
believe that no change in his RE  code  is  warranted.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on this applicant.

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 RECOMMENDS 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 an
Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Panel Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2003-03585:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Dec 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Dec 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.




      ROBERT S. BOYD
      Panel Chair