RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04273
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The majority of his career was squeaky clean; there was no excuse  for
his actions.  He asks for forgiveness and a chance to redeem himself.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
1 September 1999 for  a  term  of  4  years.   On  1  July  2001,  the
applicant's commander notified him that  he  was  recommending  he  be
discharged from the Air Force for a  pattern  of  misconduct  (conduct
prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline).   The  basis  for  the
commander’s recommendation was that on 4 January 2001, he  received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to meet  the  minimum  standards
for his government quarter; a LOR on  15 February  2001,  for  playing
stereo excessively loud after quiet hour in  government  quarters;  an
Article 15 on 14 March 2001, for unlawfully striking a  fellow  airman
in the face with his fist; and an Article 15  on  15  June  2001,  for
operating a vehicle, to wit, a passenger car, in a reckless manner, by
driving at a speed in excess of 85 miles per hour in a  55  miles  per
hour maximum speed zone.  He acknowledged receipt of the  notification
of discharge, declined counsel and declined to  submit  statements  in
his own behalf.  The discharge case was reviewed  by  the  base  legal
office and found to be legally sufficient to support  discharge.   The
discharge authority approved  his  separation  and  ordered  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R.   Applicant  was
separated on 6 August 2001,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct-conduct prejudicial to
good order and discipline) and received an under honorable  conditions
(general) discharge.  The applicant served 1 year,  11  months  and  6
days on active duty.

On 30 July 2003, he applied to the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) requesting his discharge to be upgraded to  honorable.   After
review of the evidence, his request was denied on 21 November 2003.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report  pertaining
to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.
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 in his discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
February 2004, for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

Applicant was provided with a copy of the FBI report and he  responded
by stating that the events listed  on  the  FBI  report  relate  to  a
serious accident involving a close family member and are not true.  He
was arrested on charges that occurred  at  the  hospital  following  a
motorcycle/car collision involving a close cousin.  All  charges  were
dismissed during the preliminary hearing because  of  strong  evidence
including a video brought to his defense.  Attached is a copy  of  the
disposition for the four charges.  All charges were dismissed  without
prejudice.  He believes it is important to prove to the Board that  he
has maintained a fault  free  record  since  his  discharge  from  the
military.

His complete submission, with attachment is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  his
discharge   to   honorable.    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 the applicant's overall  quality  of  service,  the  events
which precipitated the discharge, and available  evidence  related  to
his post-service activities and accomplishments.  We  do  not  believe
that clemency is warranted at this time.

5.  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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
04273 in Executive Session on 27 April 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James E. Short, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                 Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 03 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 4 Mar 04.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 04 w/atchs.





      JAMES E. SHORT
      Panel Chair