RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00835
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL: THE AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to rollbacks, he was discharged instead of disciplined  and  allowed  to
continue and finish his military career in an honorable manner.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 October 1985 for  a  period
of four (4) years.

On 8 March 1988, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment  upon  him  for  the  following:   preliminary
investigation disclosed he, having knowledge of a  lawful  order  issued  by
his  commander,  to  wit:  paragraph  4(a)(2)(a),  Nellis  Air  Force   Base
Regulation 125-2, dated 12 June 1987, an order which  it  was  his  duty  to
obey, did, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on or about 25  February  1988,
fail to obey the same by wrongfully possessing  firearms  and  munitions  in
the dormitory, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ).





Further investigation disclosed in that he did, at Nellis  Air  Force  Base,
Nevada, on or about 19 February 1988, steal 30 mm  of  ammunition,  military
property, of a value less than $100.00, the property of  the  United  States
Air Force in violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his  right  to  a  trial  by
court-martial, submitted a written presentation in his behalf and  requested
to make a personal appearance.  However,  he  did  not  desire  that  it  be
public.

On 15 March 1988, he was found guilty  by  his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman  basic,  with  a  new
date of rank of 15 March 1988, and a forfeiture of $75.00 per month for  two
months.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 28 March 1988, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Commission of a  Serious  Offense.
The specific reason was the Article 15 action, dated 15 March 1988.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that he did  not
recommend probation and rehabilitation, according to AFR 39-10,  chapter  7,
paragraph 7-2.  He believed it would be in the  best  interest  of  the  Air
Force to discharge the applicant.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf, or waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 29 March 1988, the Staff Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
separated with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 29 March 1988,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 30 March 1988, in  the  grade  of  airman  basic
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the  provisions
of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Other Serious Offenses).  He served  2  years,  5
months, and 28 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated the discharge was  consistent
with procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
which  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He  provided   no   facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 April 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant and counsel for review and response within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.   The  Board  believes  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the  separation,  and
the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations  were
violated or the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which  entitled
at the time of discharge.

4.    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.  The  applicant  has
not   provided   information   of   his    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments.  Therefore, based on the  evidence  of  record,  we  cannot
conclude that clemency is warranted.  Should  applicant  provide  statements
from community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good  character
and reputation and other evidence  of  successful  post-service  activities,
this Board  would  be  willing  to  review  this  information  for  possible
reconsideration of this case.  However, we cannot recommend  approval  based
on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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-
00835 in Executive Session on 2 June 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 April 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 April 2004.




                       ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                       Panel Chair