RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02218
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  VETERANS OF FOREIGN
                          WARS OF USA

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive adequate training nor was he prepared for his job as  an
administrative specialist.  He  attempted  to  work  to  the  best  of  his
ability.  Also, he was unable to resolve a conflict with a  service  member
who was racially biased.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 August 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)
as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 27 April 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-
10, paragraph 5-46,  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions.   The  specific
reasons for the discharge action are:

      a.    On 24 July 1986, the applicant received a Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR) for being derelict in his duties by failing to insure mail was  given
to the appropriate section.

      b.    On 26 September 1986, the applicant received a LOR for  failing
to go to his place of duty.

      c.    On  16  October  1986,  the  applicant  received  a  letter  of
counseling (LOC) for failing to go to his place of duty.

      d.    On 7 November 1986, the applicant received an  Article  15  for
failing to go his place of duty on 31 October 1986.

      e.    On 2 April 1987, the applicant received a Record of  Proceeding
of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment (AF Form 366,  for  failing
to go to his place of duty on 19 and 20 March 1987 with a new date of  rank
(DOR) of 17 November 1986.

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

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that
applicant was counseled by him, the first sergeant, the Chaplin and the
Wing Inspector Generals Staff on his unsatisfactory performance and
behavior and that all attempts had little effect.

On 27 April 1987, the applicant refused to sign the Letter of  Notification
and was given a copy.  He also refused to acknowledge that military counsel
was made available to him; and that he could submit statements in  his  own
behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 13 May  1987,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a  general  discharge
with no probation and rehabilitation.  The legal review  further  indicated
the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf after consulting with
counsel.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed  the  applicant
be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 28 May 1987, the applicant was separated from the Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airman (misconduct  -
pattern of minor disciplinary  infractions.)   He  served  one  year,  nine
months and ten 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:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  17
September 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office.

On 13 October  2004,  the  Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation regarding his activities since military service (Exhibit  F).
As of this date, no documentation was provided.

On 3 November 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy  of  the
investigative report for his review and comment.   The  applicant  did  not
respond (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, he  has  not  provided
any evidence to support those contentions.  Based on the  documentation  in
the applicant's records, it appears that the processing  of  the  discharge
and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished
in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02218 in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair