RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02740
            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 was very young when his actions resulted  in  his  being  separated
from military service.  His training and performance ratings  show  he
intended to maintain his military career.  He executed his  duties  at
the time to the fullest extent of his abilities.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a character reference.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27  June  1986  in  the
grade of airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of
airman on 27 December 1986.  He received one Airman Performance Report
(APR) closing 26 June 1987, in which the overall evaluation was “6.”

On 17 July 1987, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant  he
was recommending discharge from the Air Force for conduct  prejudicial
to good order and discipline.  The applicant was  further  advised  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge would  be  recommended.
Bases for the action were:  (1)  On  8 December  1986,  he  failed  to
report for a mandatory scheduled appointment at the  base  clinic  and
received a letter of counseling (LOC).  (2) On  5  February  1987,  he
received  a  LOC  for  not  maintaining  adequate  job   qualification
standards.  (3) On 15 May 1987, he failed to report  for  a  mandatory
scheduled appointment at  the  base  gym  and  received  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR).  (4) On 16 May 1987, he reported to guard mount  late
and received a LOC.  (5) On 31 May 1987, he was in violation of AFR 35-
10 and received a LOC.  (6)  On  27  May  1987,  he  was  late  for  a
mandatory appointment and received a LOR.  (7) On 27 May 1987, he  was
not at his appointed  place  of  duty  and  received  an  Article  15.
Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade  of  airman  basic  and
forfeiture of $50.00 for one month, but the execution of  the  portion
of this punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman
basic was suspended until 2 November 1987, at which  time  unless  the
suspension was sooner vacated it would  be  remitted  without  further
action.  (8) On 19 June 1987, he was derelict in  the  performance  of
his duties and  received  an  Article  15.   Punishment  consisted  of
forfeiture of $50.00 per month for one  month  and  reduction  to  the
grade of airman basic.  The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and, after  consulting  with  legal  counsel
waived his right to submit statements in his  own  behalf.   The  base
legal office  found  the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to  support
discharge and recommended  an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).   The  discharge
authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 14 August 1987 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 1  year,  1
month and 18 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On  20  October
2004, the applicant was invited to provide information  on  activities
he has been involved in since leaving the service. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.  (Ex 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.  We find no impropriety  in  the  characterization  of  applicant's
discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not  find  persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or  that  applicant
was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of
discharge.  We conclude, therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was  appropriate  to
the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant's overall quality of service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence  related  to  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 6 January 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:


                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02740 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Oct 04.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04 and AFBCMR,
                 dated 20 Oct 04.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair