RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03695
            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:

The charge that he disobeyed two direct orders was an error.  Prior to
this time, he had applied and been  approved  for  an  early  release.
Because of the erroneous charges, he was given  a  general  discharge.
Since his discharge, he has continued to work in physical therapy.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12  June  1985  in  the
grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.    He   was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman on 12 December 1985, and
the grade of airman first class on 12 October 1986.  He received three
Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 11 June  1986,  14  December
1986, and 14 December 1987, in which the overall evaluations were “8,”
“9,” and “7.”

On 4 April 1988, the commander notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force  for  misconduct  -  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  28  March  1988,  he
received an Article 15 for  dereliction  in  the  performance  of  his
duties and making a false official statement.  Punishment consisted of
reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $376.00 pay  per
month for two months and  45  days  of  extra  duty.   However,  those
portions of this punishment, which call for reduction beyond the grade
of airman, and forfeiture of $376.00 pay per month for two months were
suspended until 15  September  1988,  at  which  time  they  would  be
remitted  without  further  action  unless  sooner  vacated.   (2)  He
received two additional entries to his  Unfavorable  Information  File
(UIF) on 4 March 1988, for being  insubordinate  to  an  NCO;  and  on
21 March 1988 for dereliction in the performance of his  duties.   (3)
He received five Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for:  two for dereliction
in the performance of his duties; insubordination to a noncommissioned
officer (NCO); and two for failure to  report  to  duty  in  a  timely
manner.  (4) He received five  Records  of  Counseling  (ROCs)  on  24
October 1986, 16 March 1987, 14 October 1987 2 February  1988,  and  4
March 1988, for not complying with AFR 35-10 with  regards  to  proper
haircut; for  dereliction  in  the  performance  of  his  duties;  for
disobeying an  order  and  substandard  performance  of  his  assigned
duties; for being disrespectful toward superiors and derelict  in  the
performance  of  his  duties;  and   for   being   disrespectful   and
insubordinate to  an  NCO.   (5)  On  27  November  1987,  a  UIF  was
established for failure to report to duty on time.  (6) On  8 February
1988, he was placed on the  Control  Roster  for  dereliction  in  the
performance of his duties.  (7) On 16 February 1988, he failed to show
the willingness to adapt to military life and was non-recommended  for
reenlistment.  (8) On 18 February 1988, he was denied reenlistment for
failure to adapt to the military.  The applicant acknowledged  receipt
of the notification of  discharge  and  after  consulting  with  legal
counsel submitted 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 that applicant be discharged with an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 25 April 1988  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct -  pattern  of  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and
discipline), with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.
He served 2 years, 10 months and 14 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:

Applicant states he would like to address each entry of  the  advisory
sent to him.   Starting  with  item  17,  he  believes  the  date  was
incorrect.  It should be in correlation with  items  16  and  17  with
dates 14 March and 16 March respectfully.  These were all to  do  with
an improper haircut.  He had gotten his hair cut two days prior by the
base barbershop.

He points out that his record for two years and four months  prior  to
his  difficulties  in  October  1987  was  good,   showing   excellent
performance ratings.  Why did  problems  start  in  October  of  1987?
Because Airman R--- Z--- became sergeant and was placed in  charge  of
him for his first time and had an ax to grind and he was it.

Items 14, 13 and 12 had to do with being 10 minutes late for work  due
to weather conditions in Spokane, WA.  He  was  late  for  work,  many
others not under the command of Sergeant Z--- were also.  Items 11, 10
and 9 had to do with reading the newspaper on duty.  All of the  staff
read the newspaper.  He was the one made an example of by Sergeant Z---
.  Items 7 and 8, he decided to get out  of  the  military  under  the
Graham-Rudman early out program because Sergeant Z--- was  making  his
military life miserable.  Items 6, 5 and 4 were because Sergeant  Z---
and he had lost all respect for each other over bogus charges  of  his
not having his hair cut properly  and  reading  the  newspaper,  which
everyone did, including Sergeant Z---.  Items  3,  2  and  1  involved
seeing a patient on the second floor in the hospital.  In summary,  he
did check on this patient.  She was very old and  possibly  had  short
term memory loss, but he was not believed and this was the straw  that
caused his general discharge.  He went to base legal office and it was
recommended he explain the incident to the  hospital  commander.   The
commander did not understand the explanation.  He received an  Article
15; which turned out to be his second Article 15.  He  was  unable  to
get an honorable discharge because of the two Articles 15.   Prior  to
being under Sergeant Z---‘s  command,  he  enjoyed  the  military  and
working with patients, which he still does today.

He appreciates the Air Force  giving  him  his  start  as  a  physical
therapy specialist, it shaped his  life.   He  wishes  he  could  tell
others how wonderful the Air Force  was  to  him;  however,  he  can’t
because of the shame he feels for receiving an  other  than  honorable
discharge.

Applicant submitted additional documents in support of his appeal.  In
his statement for clemency, following his discharge from the  military
service, he tells of all the colleges and the university  he  attended
and the jobs he worked  while  pursuing  his  Doctor  of  Chiropractic
Degree.  In summary he states, truthfully, he has the  USAF  to  thank
for all of this.  He is  so  glad,  through  the  military,  something
directed him better than he  knew  possible  because  he  has  had  an
exciting and helpful  life.   Even  though  he  was  discharged  under
general conditions, he has the lifelong honor of helping  many  people
that may not have been helped.  For that he is so thankful.

Applicant's complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.




                             ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                             Panel Chair