RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02598
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “General” discharge be upgraded to honorable.

He be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force.

The “Narrative Reason For Separation” listed on his  DD  Form  214  be
changed from “A Pattern of Misconduct” to N/A.

He and his family be  entitled  to  all  standard  military  benefits,
including, but not limited  to,  the  GI  Bill,  health  and  wellness
benefits, use of military facilities, etc.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unwarranted and was based on the perception  of  one
superior officer who attempted to dehumanize and stereotype him.

He does not believe there is a history of any  airman  receiving  five
Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and recommendation for  discharge
within such a short timeframe prior to the actions against him.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of documents  from
his discharge file.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 11 Oct 00.  On  30  Aug  01,  the
applicant’s squadron commander notified him she was  recommending  his
discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  a   “Pattern   of   Misconduct-
Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities” and also
recommending the  applicant’s  service  be  characterized  as  General
(Under Honorable  Conditions).   The  commander  cited  the  following
reasons for this action:

          a.  Applicant’s receipt of an Article 15 on 22  Aug  01  for
failure to obey a lawful order on 9 Aug  01  and  dereliction  of  his
duties on 23 May 01 for failure to  complete  his  Career  Development
Course.

          b.  Applicant’s receipt of  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),
dated 10 Aug 01, for  dereliction  of  duty  by  failing  to  properly
process a BAS authorization letter.

          c.  Applicant’s receipt of an LOR, dated  15  Aug  01,  with
entry into an unfavorable information file (UIF)  for  dereliction  of
duty by failing to properly maintain the squadron leave program.

          d.  Applicant’s receipt of an LOR for  dereliction  of  duty
for leaving a  set  of  personnel  files,  medical  and  dental  files
unsecured in the office.

          e.  Disrespect to an NCO by  responding  to  his  supervisor
when asked to do a distribution  run,  it  wasn’t  his  turn  and  for
entering his supervisor’s office without knocking.

The applicant received the notification on 30 Aug 01  but  refused  to
sign acknowledging receipt.  On 7 Sep 01, the  applicant  submitted  a
response to the discharge  authority  requesting  he  be  retained  or
discharged with an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s Area  Defense
Counsel  also  submitted  a  statement  in  the   applicant’s   behalf
challenging the validity of the actions taken against  the  applicant.
The Wing  Staff  Judge  Advocate  performed  a  legal  review  of  the
discharge file and determined it to be legally sufficient  to  support
the  applicant’s  discharge.   They  recommended  the   applicant   be
discharged with  a  General  discharge  without  the  opportunity  for
probation and rehabilitation.  After review of the discharge file, the
Wing commander determined the applicant should be  discharged  with  a
General discharge and not offered probation and  rehabilitation.   The
applicant was discharged on 3 Oct 01 with a General  (Under  Honorable
Conditions) discharge, having completed  11  months  and  22  days  of
active service.  The applicant refused to sign the DD Form 214.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   Based  on
their review of the documentation in the master personnel record, they
determined the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The  separation
authority  approved  the  applicant’s  discharge  for  a  pattern   of
misconduct  under  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.50.1.    According   to
paragraph 5.50, this basis should be used  for  misconduct  considered
more  serious  than  that  considered  under  paragraph  5.49   (Minor
Disciplinary Infractions).  While a strong argument can  be  made  the
applicant’s underlying misconduct would more appropriately  fit  under
paragraph 5.49, there  is  no  denying  that  sufficient  evidence  of
repeated  misconduct   on   his   part   justified   the   applicant’s
administrative discharge from the Air Force.  The  specific  paragraph
cited as the discharge basis is at the discretion  of  the  initiating
commander and the separation authority.  The  Staff  Judge  Advocate’s
office  thoroughly  reviewed  the  basis  and  determined  it  legally
sufficient.

The applicant’s unsubstantiated belief that no history of  any  airman
receiving five LORs, Article 15, decertification, and a recommendation
for discharge within such  a  short  timeframe  exists  prior  to  his
separation is without merit.  Contrary to this assertion, one  serious
military or  civilian  offense  may  be  a  basis  for  discharge  for
misconduct.  A basis for discharge exists if  the  Manual  for  Courts
Martial (MCM) authorizes a punitive discharge for  the  offense  or  a
closely related one.  At a minimum, the applicant could have  received
a bad conduct discharge if he had been convicted  at  a  court-martial
for disobeying his supervisor’s order to remain in his office.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1
Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
02598 in Executive Session on 17 November 2004, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 28 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair