RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01907
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 DEC 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge be upgraded.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 March 1987, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 12 December 1989, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s
intention to recommend him for discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for
Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions in accordance  with  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, under the provisions of paragraph 5-46
with a  general  discharge.   The  commander  stated  the  following
reasons for the proposed discharge:

      a.    On or about 2 December 1988, the applicant violated  the
personal appearance standards of AFR 35-10, for which he received an
Air Force (AF) Form 174, Record of Individual Counseling.

      b.    On 15 May 1989, the applicant failed to  report  to  his
place of duty, for which he received written counseling.

      c.    During July-August 1989,  the  applicant  failed  to  go
twice to his occupational health appointments, for which he received
a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      d.    On or about 30 October 1989, the applicant failed to  go
to his place of duty, for which he received written counseling.

      e.    On or about 24 November 1989, the applicant was derelict
in his performance of his duties in that he  negligently  failed  to
remain awake as an alarm room  operator.   For  this  misconduct  he
received a Article 15 which consisted of  a  reduction  in  rank  to
airman first class.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him;  and
to submit statements in his own behalf.  He was advised that  if  he
failed to consult  counsel  or  to  submit  statements  his  failure
constituted a waiver of his right to do so.

The commander indicated in his recommendation that he  took  actions
to encourage the applicant to comply with AF standards and counseled
him about what was expected of him on and off duty.   The  commander
further recommended the applicant be  discharged  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

The applicant, after consulting with counsel, waived  his  right  to
submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended the applicant be separated from the  Air  Force  with  a
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with  a
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                    3 Mar 88                 7
                    3 Mar 89                 8

Applicant was discharged on 20 December 1989, in the grade of airman
first class  (A1C)  with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge,  in  accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (Misconduct  -   Minor
Disciplinary Infractions.  He served a total of  2 years,  9  months
and 17 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.  The applicant did not  provide  any  facts  to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
8 July 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

On 28 July 2005, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation  regarding  his  activities  since  leaving   military
service.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

In  response  to  a  request  for  post-service  documentation,  the
applicant’s  mother  submitted  a  letter  dated  26  August   2005,
requesting the Board staff contact the applicant’s foreman  (Exhibit
G).

On 6 September 2005, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a  copy
of the FBI report for his review and response.  As of this date, the
applicant has not responded (Exhibit H).

On 16 September 2005, the Board staff informed  the  applicant  that
the Board is not an investigative body and that the staff was unable
to contact his foreman (Exhibit I).

In response to the FBI report the applicant provided an  explanation
of the incidents  listed  on  the  investigative  report.   He  also
provided a character letter from his foreman Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

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 its 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
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-2005-01907 in Executive Session on  20  October  2005  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 05.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jul 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Mother, dated 26 Aug 05.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Sep 05.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                        KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                        Panel Chair