RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02813
            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 has never requested that his records be reviewed  for  an  upgrade.
Due to uncontrollable events, with his now ex-wife, his career was cut
short and somewhat tarnished near the end of  his  term.   He  further
states, since his separation from  the  Air  Force,  he  has  been  an
outstanding citizen.  He is currently remarried with two children  and
one due in November.  He has also been licensed as a Real Estate Agent
for the past five years and active in his local  church,  and  helping
with his children’s activities.  He states the military  prepared  him
with a great  foundation  and  has  pushed  him  toward  the  sky,  in
realizing there are no limits to what  he  can  achieve,  due  to  his
military background.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 January 1985 in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 7 June  1990,  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending a general discharge for minor  disciplinary  infractions.
Basis for the commander’s recommendation for  discharge:   (1)  On  26
July 1989, applicant received an Article 15 for assaulting  his  wife.
Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman  first  class
(suspended until 25 October 1989, at which time it  will  be  remitted
without further action unless sooner vacated).  (2)  On  2  May  1990,
applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for leaving  Eglin  AFB
without permission.  This was in violation of an order  given  by  the
commander restricting applicant to the base unless given permission by
his supervisor, first sergeant or commander.   (3)  On  17  May  1990,
applicant pleaded “no contest” to a charge of  battery  filed  by  his
wife in civil court and was sentenced to six months of  probation  and
fined $51.00.  (4) On 27 May  1990,  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
assaulting his wife and bringing discredit to the military in the eyes
of the civilian community.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
notification of discharge and submitted statements in his own  behalf.
The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support the discharge and recommended an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge without  probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation  and  directed
that the applicant be discharged with an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge without P&R.  The applicant was separated from the
Air Force  on  11  July  1990  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct  -  pattern  of  minor
disciplinary  infractions),  with  an   under   honorable   conditions
(general) discharge.  He served 5 years,  5  months  and  27  days  on
active duty.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for an upgrade of his  discharge  and  change  of  reason  for
discharge on 27 February 1992.  The  AFDRB  decision  document  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on  file  in  the  master
personnel records, 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
AFDRB previously reviewed all the evidence  of  record  and  concluded
there exists no legal or equitable basis  for  upgrade  of  discharge.
Also, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Nor  did  he
provide any facts warranting a change to  his  character  of  service.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 September 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.   On  6  October
2004, the applicant was invited to provided information to the  AFBCMR
pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D).

In an undated letter, applicant states that he is grateful to have the
opportunity for a  possible  upgrade  of  his  discharge.   He  really
enjoyed his time in  the  Air  Force.   The  training  and  experience
received has tremendously propelled him in the civilian community,  as
it was second to none.  Since departing from the  Air  Force,  he  has
been able to accomplish numerous adventures in life.  He has taken  on
quite a few professions with some great companies  like  Kraft  Foods,
Verizon Wireless, Terminix, and Independent Life Insurance Company  to
name a few.  He is an active member in church and was  ordained  as  a
deacon in 1998.  He is currently self-employed as a real estate  agent
and works part-time as a security officer  with  Centers  for  Disease
Control (CDC).  Within the five years as a realtor,  he  has  received
agent of the month nearly 20 times  and  officer  of  the  month  once
within the three months employed.  He has been married for seven years
to a special young lady.  They have two children  with  another  child
due very soon.

Whether or not his discharge is upgraded, he once again would like  to
emphasize his gratitude for having this opportunity.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  also
find insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation  that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have reviewed  the
statements provided; however, we do not  find  the  limited  documents
provided warrants an upgrade of his discharge.  Should  the  applicant
provide more detailed statements pertaining to  his  conduct/character
since leaving the service, the Board would be  willing  to  reconsider
his request.  In view of the above determination,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Panel Chair
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Sep 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Vice Chair