RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03866
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
    XXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL:  NONE
    XXXXXXXXXXXXX                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 JUNE 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  The punishment imposed upon  him  under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), be set aside.

3.  His rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged and reduced in rank based  on  an  outstanding  bill  from
American Express which barred him from reenlistment.  He paid  the  debt  in
full and there was never any intent to deceive  anyone  or  the  government.
He should have been notified of the punitive UCMJ action being  levied  upon
him.  His address and phone number was kept by his  unit;  however,  he  was
never notified of these actions.  He had an  excellent  service  record  and
was being considered for a TDY tour.  He is a good  and  honest  person  who
has served his country well in peacetime and war.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a  personal  statement  and
an excerpt from Army Regulation 27-10, Chapter  4,  Nonjudicial  Punishment.
Applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of service under review,  the  applicant  served  as  an
enlisted member of the Regular Army from 28 April 1983 until 17 April  1991,
when he was discharged in the grade of sergeant (E-5)  for  expiration  term
of service.  He was credited with 7 years, 11 months and 8  days  of  active
duty service.

On 28 June 1991, applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve  for  a  period
of 6 years in the grade of E-5.  His last reenlistment occurred on  2  March
1997, in the grade of E-5, for a period of 6 years.  He was reduced  to  the
grade of senior airman (E-4), pursuant an Article 15.

Examiner’s Note:  The Article 15 punishment is not a matter of record.   The
commander’s letter recommending separation reflects a reference to a  record
of disciplinary  action  “Demotion  letter  dated  5  December  1997  and  a
demotion under “5 March 1998 Order A 162.”

On 6  September  1997,  the  applicant’s  squadron  commander  notified  the
applicant that he was being denied future participation for pay  and  points
pending his involuntary  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  Reserve.   On  10
January 1998, the  applicant’s  commander  initiated  discharge  proceedings
against him under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.21.3.4,  for  a
pattern of misconduct.  The reasons for the commander’s  action  were:   The
applicant had  demonstrated  financial  irresponsibility  and  violated  Air
Force  Directives  regarding  his  use  of  the  government-issued  American
Express Card by using the card to take his family on a trip to Disney  World
and accruing an overdue account of over $5,000.00;  he  used  the  card  for
unauthorized purchases such as car parts and cell phone calls;  he  wrote  a
check to Kelly AFB,  TX  Bowling  Center  for  $20.00  on  an  account  with
insufficient funds; he failed to pay on a DPP account with a total  owed  of
$1,788.44; he wrote a check at FE Warren AFB, WY for  $306.95  on  a  closed
account; and, he wrote a check to the AAFES for $300.00 on an  account  with
insufficient funds.  The commander stated that  the  applicant  admitted  to
the misuse of the American Express Card and attempted  to  resign  from  the
Air Force Reserve.  The commander further  stated  that,  before  initiating
this recommendation, he  requested  the  immediate  supervisor  contact  the
applicant and no contact was made.

In a legal review of the commander’s  recommendation,  dated  7 March  1998,
the wing Deputy Group Staff Judge Advocate, noted that, on  2  August  1997,
the applicant submitted a letter to his supervisor in  which  he  apologized
for his misconduct and  indicated  it  was  “unintentional.”   This  officer
recommended the case be forwarded to the Air  Force  Reserve  Center  (AFRC)
commander with a recommendation that the applicant  be  discharged  with  an
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  On 16 March  1998,
the wing commander forwarded the case file to  AFRC  with  a  recommendation
that the applicant  be  discharged  because  of  misconduct  with  an  UOTHC
discharge.  Also provided was the applicant’s last known home  address.   On
6 April 1998, following a review of the case file, AFRC/JA  recommended  the
applicant be  discharged  for  the  stated  reason  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.

By memorandum dated 17  April  1998,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  the
recommendation for his separation and that  an  under  honorable  conditions
discharge was being recommended.  The applicant was advised of  his  rights.
Information in the record reveals that this package, mailed  certified,  was
returned  to  AFRC  by  postal  authorities  as  “address   unknown.”    The
memorandum of notification was remailed to him by first class mail on 7  May
1998.  The applicant was advised his failure to reply  to  the  notification
by 28 May 1998 would constitute a waiver of his  rights.   Records  indicate
postal authorities subsequently advised AFRC the  applicant  was  “attempted
not known.”  In a legal review of the discharge case  file,  dated  26  June
1998,  the  AFRC  Chief  of  Civil  Law  found  it  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force Reserve with a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  On  13  July  1998,  the  discharge
authority directed that he be discharged  with  a  general  under  honorable
conditions discharge by  reason  of  Misconduct,  Commission  of  a  Serious
Offense, Other Serious Offense.  Effective 6 August 1998, the applicant  was
discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3209,  paragraph   3.21.3.4,
Misconduct, Commission of a  Serious  Offense,  Other  Serious  Offense  and
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was  credited
with 13 years, 11 months, and 8 days of satisfactory Federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPMB recommends the application be denied.  DPMB  states  there  is  no
evidence to support the  applicant’s  claim  he  was  not  notified  of  the
demotion.   The  applicant  was  given  due  process  and  to   revoke   the
administrative demotion now would be a disservice to the commander  and  the
Air Force.  The AFRC/DPMB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 March 2005, a copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for review and response.  As of this date,  this  office  has  not
received a response.

___________________________________________________________________

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  applicant  asserts  the  Article  15
punishment imposed on him should be be set  aside  and  his  rank  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) be restored; and, his general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge be upgraded to honorable because he  was  never  notified  of  the
actions being taken against him.  We note documentation  pertaining  to  the
imposition of nonjudicial punishment is not a matter of  record.   In  cases
of this nature, regularity is presumed in the conduct of military  officials
in the performance of their  duties.   The  burden  for  providing  evidence
showing  the  contrary  rests  with  an  applicant.   Other  than  his   own
unsupported  allegations,  the  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence   his
commander’s  decision  to  impose  the  punishment  was  contrary   to   the
provisions of the UCMJ or an abuse of discretionary authority.   As  to  the
separation action, it appears the applicant’s unit made several attempts  to
contact him upon the initiation  of  discharge  proceedings,  to  no  avail.
Interestingly, there is no indication in the record nor  has  the  applicant
provided any evidence showing he made any effort to  contact  his  commander
or unit authorities during  this  period  of  time.   In  our  opinion,  the
infractions cited  by  his  commander  as  the  bases  for  the  applicant’s
separation represent serious financial malfeasance.   The  applicant  claims
he repaid the bill in a timely manner but has provided no  evidence  showing
this was the  case.   Furthermore,  the  incident  cited  by  the  applicant
involving his trip to an amusement park is only one of  several  charges  of
financial  irresponsibility  cited  by  his   superiors   to   support   his
separation.  Contrary to his assertions, we have seen  no  evidence  showing
his substantial rights were violated, the information in his discharge  case
file is erroneous, or his commanders abused their  discretionary  authority.
Accordingly,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably  consider  the
applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 14 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
           Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
           Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2004-03866:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 04, with attachments.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPMB, dated 18 Feb 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 05.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair