RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00552
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has led an upstanding life since that mistake.  He is  married  and
wishes to start fresh without guilt of the past.  It has been  a  long
time  and  this  mistake  is  still  haunting  him.   He  is   seeking
forgiveness.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10  July  1996  in
the grade of airman first class for a period of four years.

On  2  September  1997,  the  applicant's  commander  notified   the
applicant he was being recommended for a discharge  for  misconduct.
The commander cited the following reasons for the discharge:

      a.  On or about 28 October  1996,  the  applicant  operated  a
motor vehicle, while drunk.  For  this  misconduct  he  received  an
Article  15,  dated  15  November  1996,  which  was  placed  in  an
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  His punishment consisted  of  a
suspended reduction in rank to airman, forfeiture of $300.00 of  pay
a month for 2 months, and 40 days of extra duty.

      b.  On or about 23-24 July  1997,  the  applicant  operated  a
motor vehicle while drunk.

      c.  The applicant, on 23 July  1997,  knowingly  disobeyed  an
order suspending his driving privileges, by driving.  For this
misconduct, he received an Article 15, dated 20 August  1997,  which
was place in an UIF and a control roster action was initiated.   His
punishment consisted of reduction in rank to airman  and  forfeiture
of $505.00 of pay.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for  discharge  action
the applicant was repeatedly counseled by his  superiors  concerning
accepted standards and behaviors.  The commander further stated  the
applicant was also placed  in  Outpatient  Treatment  for  substance
abuse.  The commander believed the applicant was not a candidate for
probation  and  rehabilitation  and  his  actions  were  a   blatant
disregard for standards.

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel  had  been
obtained to assist him; or he could choose another  counsel;  submit
statements in his own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 8  September  1997,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant
invoked his right to submit a statement.

On 15 September 1997, a legal review was  conducted  and  the  staff
judge advocate (SJA) found the case file to  be  legally  sufficient
and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

On  17  September  1997,  the  discharge  authority   approved   the
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 23  September  1997,  in  the  grade  of
airman with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge,  in
accordance with AFI 36-3208 (misconduct  -  conduct  prejudicial  to
good order and discipline).  He served a total of 1 year,  2  months
and 14 days of active service.

Applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) in  June  1998
to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable.  The  AFDRB,  on
24 September 1998, denied the applicant’s request for an  upgrade  of
his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his  discharge.   Furthermore,  the  AFBRB  previously  concluded  the
applicant’s  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Nor did he provide
any facts to warrant an  upgrade  of  his  discharge.   Based  on  the
information and  evidence  provided  they  recommend  the  applicant's
request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states this is his
second attempt requesting his discharge be upgraded.  The  thing  that
has stood out the most to him with this application was he  was  asked
what injustice was done to him.  He is  not  sure  if  there  was  any
injustice done to him, but what he does know is that he  made  a  huge
mistake and has always regretted making the mistake.  He realizes when
he made those mistakes he was young, naïve and  arrogant.   He  deeply
regrets what he did and is begging from the bottom of his heart for an
upgrade.  It has been seven years and he has grown to be a responsible
law abiding young man.  He believes this mistake should not haunt  him
for the rest of his life.  He would like to start  a  fresh  new  life
with is wife (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to  recommend
upgrading the applicant’s discharge.  Based on the documentation  in
the   applicant's   records,   it   appears   to   the   Board   the
characterization of the discharge was appropriate  in  view  of  his
misconduct while on active duty.  Although  the  applicant  did  not
specifically request consideration based on clemency, we  also  find
insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation the  discharge  be
upgraded on that basis.  Therefore, absent persuasive  evidence  the
applicant  was  denied  rights  to   which   entitled,   appropriate
regulations were not followed, or  appropriate  standards  were  not
applied, the Board finds no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2004-00552 in Executive Session on 21 April 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 04.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 31 Mar 04.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Panel Chair