RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00408
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was correct and without errors.

In support of  his  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his
DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate, dated 18 Jan 80.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  9  Dec  77  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four  years.   Prior  to  the
events under review, he was promoted to the grade of  airman  first
class (A1C/E-3).  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman
basic (AB/E-1).

On 18 Dec  79,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for frequent involvement  of
a discreditable nature.   The  bases  for  the  proposed  discharge
action were that:

     On 22 Sep 79, applicant received  nonjudicial  punishment  for
being derelict in the performance of his duty by failing to  be  on
stand-by, as directed,  on  or  about  22 Sep 79.   His  punishment
consisted of a suspended reduction  to  airman  and  forfeiture  of
$100.

     On 19 Nov 79, applicant received  nonjudicial  punishment  for
willfully destroying US military property by throwing a mirror  out
of a window, on or about 25 Oct  79.   Punishment  consisted  of  a
reduction to the grade of  airman  with  a  new  date  of  rank  of
10 Oct 79 and forfeiture of $100.

     On 3 Dec 79, applicant  received  nonjudicial  punishment  for
willfully breaking a window, on or about 17 Nov 79.  His punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture  of
$150 for two months, and restriction to the base for 30 days.

     In addition, applicant received  four  letters  of  counseling
between 23 Apr and  30  Nov  79,  for  checks  being  returned  for
insufficient funds, repeated failures to report to  duty  on  time,
for departing the duty section  without  authority  and  a  traffic
violation.

After consulting with  counsel  and  having  been  advised  of  his
rights, applicant submitted a  conditional  waiver  of  his  rights
associated  with  an   administrative   discharge   board   hearing
contingent on his receipt of a general  discharge  or  better.   On
27 Dec 79, the Group Staff Judge Advocate  found  the  case  to  be
legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge.   He  recommended  the
conditional waiver be rejected and applicant be advised  to  submit
either an unconditional waiver or a request for  an  administrative
discharge board  (ADB) hearing.  The conditional waiver was  denied
on  28  Dec  79,  and  applicant  requested  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge board.

On 10 Jan 80, applicant appeared before the ADB convened under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12.  The Board found that  the  applicant  had
committed the incidents of  misconduct  cited  in  the  commander’s
letter of notification and recommended that he be separated with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge,  without  probation
and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 15 Jan 80, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally
sufficient  to  support  discharge  and   recommended   a   general
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 17 Jan 80, the discharge authority  directed  the  applicant  be
issued a General Discharge Certificate and  stated  that  probation
and rehabilitation were considered and deemed inappropriate.

On 18 Jan 80, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, by reason of  misconduct  -  frequent  involvement  with
civil/military authorities - board, with service  characterized  as
under honorable conditions.  He was credited with 2 years, 1 month,
and 10 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
available documentation in  the  file,  they  found  the  discharge
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the
discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was  within  the
sound discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   They  also  noted
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided
no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the advisory opinion, applicant apologized  for  the
record.  Since he has been discharged for over  24  years  ago,  he
believes  that  he  has  paid  the  price   for   his   misconduct.
Additionally, he further explained  the  circumstances  surrounding
the misconduct which led to his discharge.

Applicant’s complete response 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 error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing manual and  we  find
no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force  was
inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been  submitted  in
support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe  he  has  suffered
from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available  evidence  of
record, we find no basis upon  which  to  favorably  consider  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00408 in Executive  Session  on  8  July  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair