RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00912
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young (17 years old) when he enlisted in the Air Force.  He  was
not prepared for the real world and definitely not ready to be  overseas  in
Germany, where the alcohol flows freely.  He  states  his  discharge  was  a
humiliation and an embarrassment to his parents.   Since  his  discharge  he
realizes the mistakes he made  in  the  service  and  has  turned  his  life
around.  He has been married for 16 years and have two children.   He  is  a
productive member of his community and desires his discharge upgraded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 September 1984  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four.

On 2 May 1985, the applicant was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  He did at  Rhein-
Main Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany,  on  or  about  19  April  1985,
without authority, through neglect, damage by breaking the glass out of  the
door on the south-east side, first floor of building  350,  of  a  value  of
about $45.72, military property of the United States,  the  amount  of  said
damage being in the sum of $72.82, including  labor,  in  violation  of  the
Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice,  Article  108.   Further  investigation
disclosed he was at Rhein-Main Air Base, Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  or
about 19 April 1985, disorderly, which conduct was  of  a  nature  to  bring
discredit upon the armed  forces,  in  violation  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice, Article 134.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his  right  to  a  trial  by
court-martial, requested a personal appearance, and  did  attach  a  written
presentation in his behalf.

On 9 May 1985, he  was  found  guilty  by  his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: A reduction in grade to airman basic  and  ordered  to
undergo correctional custody for 30 days, but the execution of  the  portion
of  the  punishment  which  provides  for  reduction  to  airman  basic   is
suspended until 8 November 1985, at which time, unless  this  suspension  is
sooner vacated, it will be remitted without further action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed  in
the applicant’s UIF.

On 11 February 1986, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for  the  following:   He  did  at
Rhein-Main Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, on  or  about  7  February
1986, without authority proper authority, willfully damage  by  putting  his
fist through the window of the door on the south-west side, first  floor  of
building 350, of a value of about $45.72, military property  of  the  United
States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of $72.82.

Further investigation disclosed he  was  at  Rhein-Main  Air  Base,  Federal
Republic of Germany, on or about 7  February  1986,  drunk  and  disorderly,
which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his  right  to  a  trial  by
court-martial, did not request a personal appearance, and did not  attach  a
written presentation in his behalf.

On 11 February 1986, he was found guilty by his commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: A reduction  in  grade  to  airman,  a  forfeiture  of
$150.00, and 14 days extra duty.  His new date of  rank  as  airman  was  21
February 1986.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed  in
the applicant’s UIF.

On 19 March 1986, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions.
The commander indicated his reasons for this  action  were  the  Article  15
actions and on 28 February 1985 to 22 April 1985, he was counseled  numerous
times on his bearing, behavior, reporting to duty on  time,  and  AFR  35-10
violations.

The commander indicated in  his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  the
applicant had been counseled numerous times on meeting AFR  35-10  standards
and reporting to duty on time.  He  was  counseled  on  improving  his  duty
performance.  After being identified as drunk on station when  he  destroyed
government property, he was entered into the alcohol evaluation  process  at
social actions.  All attempts at rehabilitation  had  failed.   He  did  not
recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant had been given  every
opportunity to improve his conduct.

On 26 March 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate  conducted  a  legal  review  and
recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and he  not
be afforded an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.

On 28 March 1986,  the  discharge  authority  approved  applicant’s  general
discharge.

On 15 April 1986, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman,  with
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge  under  the  provisions  of
AFR  39-10  (Misconduct-Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions).   He
served one year, seven months,  and  nine  days  of  total  active  military
service.

On 29 October 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered
and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge  to  honorable.   They  indicated  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority and the applicant was provided full  administrative  due  process.
There exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of  discharge  (Exhibit
B).

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to  identify  with  an
arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.   They  indicated  the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) previously reviewed all  the  evidence  of  record  and
concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority and applicant was provided full  administrative  due
process.  The AFDRB further concluded there exists  no  legal  or  equitable
basis for upgrade of his  discharge.   The  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  which  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 April 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant 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.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Applicant  has
not   provided   information   of   his    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments.  Therefore, based on the  evidence  of  record,  we  cannot
conclude clemency is warranted.  Should  the  applicant  provide  statements
from community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good  character
and reputation and other evidence of  successful  post-service,  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-2003-
00912 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                  Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 March 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 April 2004.




                       BRENDA L. ROMINE
                       Panel Chair