RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03310
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Conditions which were not in his control prevented him from getting
to work on time each day.

His discharge has been a hinderance and a factor in his  finding  a
good job.  He believes  his  discharge  was  unjust  based  on  the
conditions of his living quarters.  He had  reported  to  the  dorm
leader about the noise at night, which resulted in his inability to
sleep at night.  It’s been over ten years and it is time  for  this
injustice to be corrected.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal  statement
and a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of  Discharge
or Dismissal from the Armed Forces  of  the  United  States,  dated
17 Oct 04.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular on 30 Aug 91 for a period of four
years.

On  12  Jun  92,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative  discharge  action   against   the   applicant   for
misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions.  The  specific  reasons
for the proposed action were:

On 10 Feb 92, applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to  his
appointed place of duty without authority.  For  this  offense,  he
received an AF Form 174, Record of Individual Counseling (RIC).

On 11 Feb 92, he disobeyed a lawful order.  For  this  offense,  he
received an RIC.

On 17 Feb 92, he failed  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty without authority.  For this misconduct, he
received an RIC.

On 19 and 22 Feb 92, applicant uttered checks to the Base Exchange,
on an account that was closed.

On 18 May 92, he failed  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty without authority.  For this misconduct, he
received a letter of reprimand (LOR).

On 19 May 92, applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to  his
appointed place of duty without authority.  For this he received an
Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment  imposed  on  the  applicant
consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman and  30  days
of correctional custody.

On 2 Jun 92, he failed the Correctional Custody program.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge  notification  and
after consulting with counsel, he submitted statements in  his  own
behalf.  On 17 Jun 92, the wing staff judge advocate found the case
file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge  for
misconduct consisting solely of minor disciplinary infractions, and
recommended the applicant be separated with  a  general  discharge,
without probation or rehabilitation.  On 23 Jun 92,  the  discharge
authority approved  a  general  discharge,  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 24 Jun 92, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10 by reason of Misconduct - Pattern of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions, with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions).  He was credited with 9 months and 25 days  of  active
duty service.

On 12  Sep  96,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied applicant’s request  to  have  his  discharge
upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
the documentation in the file, they found the discharge  consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  applicant
did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided
no other facts warranting a change to character of service.

A complete copy of the 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 19 Nov 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  do  not
believe he has suffered from  an  injustice.   Notwithstanding  the
above, we note  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any  information
pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.  If he were
to submit post-service documentation, the Board may be  willing  to
reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.  Therefore, based on
the available evidence of record, we find no basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider 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-2004-03310 in Executive Session on 11 January  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Nov 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair