RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04072
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was a long time ago and he has not been in any trouble  since.
 He does not drink alcohol, doesn’t do drugs, nor has  he  been  in  trouble
with the law.  He is looking forward to  a  career  in  law  enforcement  or
security and his current discharge characterization prevents him from  doing
so.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a  personal  statement,
several character references, a copy of his criminal  record  check,  and  a
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 August 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
He continued  to  enlist  and  serve  on  active  duty,  entering  his  last
enlistment on 4 August 1984, when he reenlisted for a  period  of  4  years.
The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant  (E-
5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 1981.  He received  sixteen
enlisted performance reports from 5 August 1971  through  28  January  1987,
with overall evaluation ratings of 8, 9, 9, 8, 7, 9, 9, 8, 8, 9,  8,  8,  9,
8, 8, and 8.

On 14 March 1972, the applicant  was  tried  by  special  court-martial  and
found guilty for disobeying a lawful command on or about 11 March 1972.   He
was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 90 days, to forfeit $114  pay
per month for three months, and to be reduced in grade to airman basic.   On
22 August 1972, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for  disobeying
a lawful order on or about 9  August  1972.   His  punishment  consisted  of
forfeiture of $144 for 2 months and 30 days in  Correctional  Custody.   The
Correctional Custody portion  of  the  punishment  was  suspended  until  21
September 1972, when unless sooner vacated, it  would  be  remitted  without
further action.  The applicant chose  not  to  appeal  the  punishment.   On
4 February 1975, the applicant received  Article  15  punishment  for  being
disrespectful  to  a  superior  non-commissioned  officer.   The   applicant
received punishment of reduction to the grade of airman first class  and  45
days of extra duty.  The reduction in grade portion of  his  punishment  was
suspended until 1 August 1975, when  unless  sooner  vacated,  it  would  be
remitted without further action.  The applicant  chose  not  to  appeal  the
decision.  On 16 June 1977, the applicant  received  Article  15  punishment
for  disobeying  an  order  and  for  being  disrespectful  to  a   superior
commissioned officer.  He received punishment  consisting  of  reduction  in
grade to airman first class, forfeiture of $25 per  month  for  two  months,
and base restriction for thirty days.  The reduction  in  grade  portion  of
his punishment was suspended until 10  December  1977,  when  unless  sooner
vacated, it would be remitted without further action.  The  applicant  chose
not to appeal the decision.  On 21 February 1978, the  applicant  was  found
guilty of theft  by  a  special  court-martial.   He  was  sentenced  to  be
confined at hard labor for 30 days, to forfeit $100 per month for 3  months,
and to be restricted to the limits of his base for 30 days.

On 16 November 1983,  the  applicant  was  decertified  from  the  Personnel
Reliability Program based on an alcohol related incident  in  January  1983,
he was placed on a a permanent physical profile indicating he should not  be
placed in  a  sensitive  career  field  --  mixed  personality  disorder  as
manifested by passive-aggressive traits,  alcohol  abuse,  and  occupational
problems.

On 10 October 1986, the applicant, who was then  serving  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant, received Article 15 punishment for  failure  to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and  being  disrespectful  to
two of his superior non-commissioned officers.  The punishment  imposed  was
reduction to the grade of sergeant (E-4) and a reprimand.  The reduction  in
grade portion of his punishment was  suspended  until  10 April  1987,  when
unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted  without  further  action.   The
applicant chose not to appeal the decision.  On 29 May 1987,  the  applicant
received Article 15 punishment for two instances of theft of the  amount  of
$2.00, the property of the United States.  The punishment  consisted  of  14
days’ extra duty.  On 30 June 1987, Article 15  punishment  was  imposed  on
the applicant for being disorderly on or about 4  June  1987.   He  received
punishment of reduction in grade to sergeant with a date of rank of 30  June
1987.

On 3 August 1987, his squadron  commander  notified  the  applicant  of  his
intent to  recommend  the  applicant  for  an  Under  Other  Than  Honorable
Conditions (UOTHC)  discharge,  without  probation  or  rehabilitation,  for
discreditable involvement with military or  civil  authorities  and  conduct
prejudicial to good order and discipline  based  on  the  infractions  which
resulted in the Article  15  punishments  imposed  on  the  applicant  on  1
October 1986, 14 May 1987 and  4  June  1987.   On  10  August  1987,  after
consulting military legal counsel, the applicant responded with an offer  to
waive his rights associated with an administrative discharge board  hearing,
contingent upon receipt  of  no  less  than  a  general  discharge,  if  the
discharge was approved.   The  group  commander  and  staff  judge  advocate
concurred with the recommendation for discharge  and  recommended  accepting
the applicant’s conditional waiver for a general  discharge.   On  21 August
1987, the numbered Air Force staff judge  advocate  found  the  case  to  be
legally sufficient and concurred with the discharge recommendation.   On  25
August 1987,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s  general
discharge  without  probation  or  rehabilitation  based  on   discreditable
involvement with military/civilian authorities and  conduct  prejudicial  to
good order and discipline under the authority of AFR  39-10,  paragraphs  5-
47a and 5-47b.  The applicant was discharged effective 28 August  1987  with
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He had served  15  years,
10 months, and 18 days on active  duty.   Time  lost  was  74  days  due  to
confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of  the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest  record  pertaining  to
the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  It is DPPRS’  opinion  that  the  applicant’s
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation in affect at the time and within the  discretion
of the discharge authority.  DPPRS  states  that  the  applicant  failed  to
submit evidence or identify any errors or injustices that  occurred  in  his
discharge processing.  Additionally, he has provided no facts warranting  an
upgrade of his discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he wasn’t an angel during his almost sixteen  years  in
the Air Force; however, he did his very best and he thinks  his  performance
reports speak for themselves.  He hopes the Board  will  favorably  consider
his request so he can start his  life  over  again  working  in  either  law
enforcement or security.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The  applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case  file  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.   The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances  of  his  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  We have  noted  the
supportive statements provided in the applicant’s behalf.  In  our  opinion,
the cited statements are not of a sufficient quality or quantity to  support
approval of the requested relief based on clemency in view of  the  numerous
infractions the applicant committed during his entire  military  career  and
the fact that he was discharged under  honorable  conditions.   Accordingly,
we do not believe  upgrading  the  applicant’s  under  honorable  conditions
discharge to fully honorable would be appropriate at this time.   Therefore,
the applicant’s request 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 13 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-04072
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair