RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-02629
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1986 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served proudly until  his  disabling  condition  (bipolar  disorder
(BD)) changed his disposition.  As for his  arrest,  he  believes  the
recruiter made a mistake in filling out the form.

The applicant  provides  a  personnel  statement  and  two  supporting
statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On his 30 Jul 84 Air Force Application for Enlistment, DD  Form  1966,
the applicant indicated he had been fined $60.00 for speeding  in  Mar
84 in Oklahoma City.  On his 30 Jul 84  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)
Personnel Security Questionnaire, the applicant indicated “No” in Item
14a as to whether he had ever been arrested, charged, cited or held by
Federal, State  or  other  law  enforcement  or  juvenile  authorities
regardless of whether the citation was  dropped  or  dismissed  or  if
found not guilty.  However,  in  Item  14b,  the  applicant  indicated
“Yes,” as a result of being arrested, charged, etc., he was convicted,
fined or forfeited bond, etc.  The applicant explained  he  was  fined
$60.00 for speeding in Mar 84.

However, he did not indicate he was  arrested  on  24 Feb  83  by  the
Oklahoma City Police Department and charged with  receiving  a  stolen
credit card.



The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Nov  84  and  was
assigned  to  the  3rd  Law  Enforcement  Squadron   at   Clark   AFB,
Philippines, as a law enforcement gate sentry.

The applicant’s Airman Performance Reports (APRs)  closing  29 Sep  85
and 5 Feb 86 both had overall ratings of 8.

On 30 Jul 85, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing five
checks totaling  $100.00  without  sufficient  funds  to  cover  them,
between 27 Jun and 5 Jul 85, and that he did not redeem three  of  the
checks within the time frame ordered by the first sergeant.

He received an LOR on 1 Nov 85 for being apprehended and charged  with
allegedly raping a 24-year old female local national on the  night  of
28-29 Aug 85.  The Air Force Office of Special  Investigation  (AFOSI)
investigated this matter and, during the  investigation,  the  alleged
victim dropped her charges.  However, the investigation  did  disclose
the applicant violated a command order on 23 Aug 85 by allowing her to
spend the entire night  in  his  dorm  room  and  continuing  to  have
intercourse with her on 28 Aug 85 even after she asked or told him  to
stop.

On 19 Feb 86, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend discharge for fraudulent enlistment  with  an  honorable  or
general characterization.  The commander charged the applicant for not
listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his
30  Jul  84  Application  for  Enlistment.   Further,  the   applicant
similarly omitted this arrest on his 30 Jul 84 DOD Personnel  Security
Questionnaire.  The applicant acknowledged  receipt  and  submitted  a
statement.  That  same  date,  the  commander  recommended  a  general
discharge for defective enlistment.  The  commander  added  that  much
time had been spent trying to correct the applicant’s  post-enlistment
behavior without positive results. The applicant’s rebuttal  contended
his recruiter told him to fill out the forms the way he did,  but  the
commander pointed out it was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility
to  list  all  pertinent  information  and  certify  its  correctness.
Additionally, the commander reported the charges were not  dropped  as
the applicant claimed, and Oklahoma currently  had  fugitive  warrants
out on him.  These false statements and his financial irresponsibility
caused the commander to doubt the applicant’s  integrity.   Therefore,
probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.

Legal review on 13 Mar 86 found the case sufficient for discharge  and
recommended  a  general  discharge  without  P&R.    The   recommended
administrative general discharge was approved on 18 Mar 86.



On 18 Apr 86, after 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of  active  service,
the applicant was discharged in the grade of  airman  with  a  general
characterization for defective enlistment-fraudulent entry.

On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the  applicant’s  request  to  have  his
narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to
“Administrative Disclosure.”  A copy of the Record of  Proceedings  is
provided at Exhibit B.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes  the  discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation and was within the discharge  authority’s  discretion.  The
applicant has not substantiated  any  errors  or  injustices  and  his
appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit
E).

On 30 Sep 04, the AFBCMR Staff invited the applicant to  submit  post-
service information (Exhibit F).  On 6 Oct 04, a complete copy of  the
FBI report was forwarded to  the  applicant  for  review  and  comment
(Exhibit G).

The applicant submitted a personal statement, his resume, and the same
two supporting statements provided with his application.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit H.

The applicant contends he did not “authorize”  an  investigation  into
his background, which has no bearing of the type of individual  he  is
today.  He notes the last charge is almost seven years old.  He claims
he never had any problem with the law until he  moved  to  Washington,
and believes this was because of racism.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.   Other  than
his own assertions, the applicant provides  no  evidence  establishing
his discharge was erroneous or unwarranted, or that his misconduct was
beyond his control due to medical problems.  Further,  his  misconduct
continued after his separation until 1998.  Despite being  invited  to
submit verification of his  post-service  activities  as  a  gainfully
employed, law-abiding citizen, he provided only  his  resume  and  two
supporting statements.  The applicant  has  not  demonstrated  he  was
denied due process or was the victim of discrimination as he  alleges.
In view of the above and absent convincing evidence to  the  contrary,
we are not persuaded  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  should  be
upgraded to honorable on the basis of error, injustice, or clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 January 2005 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02629 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 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 30 Sep 04.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Oct 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated, received 12 Oct 04,
                       w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter Applicant, dated 17 Oct 04.




                                   RENEE M. COLLIER
                                   Acting Panel Chair