RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01584
            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:

When he was in the Air Force he did not project a  good  image.   He  was  a
good airman when it came to his job performance, but his personal  life  was
a different matter.   He  was  the  second  highest  graduate  in  his  Non-
Commissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Military Education (PME) class.   He
believes had he been given the opportunity to finish his term of  enlistment
he would have attained the rank of sergeant.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 June 1983, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 24 May 1985, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

            In that he did at ----- Air Force  Base,  on  or  about  19  May
1985, without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to  his  appointed
place of duty, to wit:  Bldg 18002.

            In that he did at ----- Air Force  Base,  on  or  about  20  May
1985, without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to  his  appointed
place of duty, to wit:  Bldg 18002.

            In that he was at ----- Air Force  Base,  on  or  about  20  May
1985, as a  result  of  wrongful  previous  overindulgence  in  intoxicating
liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial,  did  not  submit  a  written  presentation  in  his  behalf;
however, he requested a personal appearance.

On 31 May 1985, he was  found  guilty  by  his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman  (from  airman  first
class), 30 days correctional custody, forfeiture of $100.00  pay  per  month
for two months.  The execution of  the  portion  of  the  punishment,  which
provided for reduction, was suspended  until  27  November  1985,  at  which
time, unless the  suspension  was  sooner  vacated,  it  would  be  remitted
without further action.

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

On 25 June 1985, AF Form 3212, Record of Supplementary Action under  Article
15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  indicates  remission   of
correctional custody in excess of 25 days.

On 9 September 1986, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  he did, at ---
-- Air Force Base, on or  about  14 August  1986,  make  and  utter  to  the
Officer’s Open Mess, a certain check, in words and figures  as  follows,  to
wit:  Check number 145,  in  the  amount  of  $16.75,  for  the  purpose  of
obtaining  food  from  the  Officer’s  Open   Mess,   and   did   thereafter
dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds  in  the  Wachovia  Bank  and
Trust Company, for payment of such check in full upon  its  presentment  for
payment.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial  by
court-martial, submitted a written presentation, and  requested  a  personal
appearance.

On 24 September 1986, he was found guilty by his commander who  imposed  the
following punishment: Reduction to the grade of  airman  first  class  (from
senior airman) and 30  days  correctional  custody;  however,  reduction  to
airman first class was suspended until 19  March  1987  and  then  would  be
remitted unless sooner vacated.

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

On 9 October 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate  discharge  action  against  him  for   Irresponsibility   in   the
Management of Personal  Finances  and  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions  and
recommended a general discharge.   The  commander  indicated  the  following
reasons for the recommended action:

        a. During December 1984, he wrote numerous  bad  checks  to  various
businesses and persons, in violation of Article  134,  UCMJ.   For  this  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

        b. On 25 April 1985, a check he issued to  the  base  NCO  Club  was
dishonored by his bank because he failed to  maintain  sufficient  funds  in
his account, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  For  this  he  received  an
LOR.

        c. Article 15 action dated 31 May 1986.

        d. From 2 May through 8 July 1986, he wrote seven bad checks to  the
base facilities the sum of which was $165.40, in violation of  Article  134,
UCMJ.  For this he received an LOR.

        e. On 15 August 1986, he was 90 days delinquent in  paying  his  NCO
club account.  For this he received an LOR.

        f. On 12 September  1986,  the  applicant’s  NCO  club  account  was
$551.25 overdue.

        g. Article 15 action dated 24 September 1986.

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

In his recommendation for discharge, the  commander  indicated  that  before
recommending discharge, several attempts at  rehabilitation  were  made  and
instead of reducing his debts, the applicant increased them.

On 23 October 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived  his
right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 24  October  1986,  the  Acting  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be discharged under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Chapter  5,
Section E, paragraph 5-26d and Section H, paragraph 5-46, without  probation
and rehabilitation, and he be issued a general discharge.

On 24  October  1986,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

On 27 October 1986, the applicant was discharged  in  the  grade  of  senior
airman.  He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge  under
the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct  -  Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions).  He served three years, four months, and seven days  of  total
active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative  Report,  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated based  on  the  documentation
on file, 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
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 June 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.

On 23 June 2004, the Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 14 days (Exhibit F) and  on  8 July  2004,  the
Board provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to  the  FBI  report
within 14 days  (Exhibit  G).   The  applicant  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, which is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  letters
submitted in behalf of the applicant are  noted;  however,  in  the  Board’s
opinion the applicant has not  provided  sufficient  information  concerning
his  post-service  activities  and  accomplishments.   Further,  it  appears
according to his FBI Report he  has  had  further  incidents  of  misconduct
since his discharge.  Therefore, 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-
01584 in Executive Session on 19 August 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 June 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 June 2004.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 June 2004, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 July 2004, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 July 2004, w/atchs.



                       WAYNE R. GRACIE
                       Panel Chair