RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01888
                       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 was wrongfully discharged due to  unjust  acts  of  other  military
members.  He was selected for a special one-year Temporary Duty  (TDY)
and his supervisor retaliated by downgrading  his  Airman  Performance
Report (APR).  When he reported an officer for possible abuse  against
a family member he was charged with being disorderly  on  station  and
was transferred to another flight and  ordered  to  undergo  a  mental
health evaluation and was discharged.

Since being discharged from the Air Force, he has served in the Marine
Corps, California Air National Guard (CARNG) and  selected  to  attend
officer candidate school (OCS).  He also has owned his own  restaurant
and has been involved in several fundraisers within the community.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 December 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman (Amn) for a period of four years.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 16 April 1984 for
an episode in the  dormitory  where  the  applicant  entered  a  room
wearing a camouflage hat and paint with an open knife with the intent
of playing a joke on a Senior Airman (SrA) and as  a  result  of  the
incident the  SrA  received  a  small  cut.   The  mental  evaluation
diagnosed  the  applicant  as  having  immature  personality   traits
characterized by impulsiveness, acting out, lack of
insight, lack of respect for appropriate rules  and  demands  in  his
social environment.  The psychologist stated the applicant  “was  not
mature, stable or appropriate for Personnel Reliability Program (PRP)
and I recommend that he be permanently decertified from  PRP.   Given
the applicant’s immaturity and history of problems in the squadron, I
have concerns about whether he was appropriate for crosstraining.”

On 26 April 1984, the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's
intent  to  recommend  him  for  discharge  for  minor   disciplinary
infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.  The applicant received notification of a returned check  to
the noncommissioned officer (NCO) club on 27 June 1983.

      b.  The applicant received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  on
4 July 1983 for failure to report.

      c.  On 3 October 1983,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for failure to report.

      d.  On 21 November 1983, the  applicant  received  a  Dormitory
Standards Letter for an unsatisfactory dormitory room on  18 November
1983.

      e.  On 11 January 1984, the applicant received a LOC for  being
late to a mandatory formation.

      f.  The applicant received an Article 15 dated 5 April 1984 for
being disorderly on station on or about 2 April 1984.

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

On  8  May  1984,  the  applicant  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification letter and that military counsel was made available  to
assist him; and after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his
right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended the applicant be discharged  with  a  general  discharge
with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 14 May 1984, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 15 May 1984,  in  the  grade  of  airman
first class with a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge,
in  accordance  with  AFR   39-10   (Misconduct-pattern   of   minor
disciplinary infractions).  He served 1 year, 4 months and  29  days
of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his 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.  Also, he did not 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 states the reasons that were stated  for  his  discharge
are not accurate.  He was discharged  for  reporting  an  officer  for
conduct unbecoming an officer.  He was discharged for doing the  right
thing not the  politically  correct  thing.   He  further  states  the
misconduct committed was probably enough to discharge  him  but  these
actions were minor and no one is perfect.   He  has  achieved  several
accomplishments since being discharged from  the  Air  Force.   He  is
requesting this upgrade to  right  an  injustice  that  was  committed
several years ago.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit F.

A copy of the investigative report was forwarded to the applicant on 2
August 2004, for review and response.  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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  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  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's   records,   it   appears   the   processing    and    the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the  applicant’s
overall quality of service, however, in view of his  misconduct  while
he was on active duty and the apparent continued  acts  of  misconduct
after leaving  active  duty,  we  do  not  believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
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-
2004-01888  in  Executive  Session  on  21  October  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 04, w/atch.




                                        RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair