RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03918
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL:  JOHN T. SCHALL, ESQ.
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The general discharge he received is inequitable because  it  was  based  on
lack of evidence (Article 15 dated 18 June 2003, Letters of Reprimand  (LOR)
dated 9 July 2003 and 2 October 2002, and a Report of Individual  Counseling
dated 30 September 2002) or for twice oversleeping due  to  over  scheduling
evening college classes.

Applicant submits no supporting documentation.   Applicant’s  submission  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 March 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 6 years.  He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with a  date  of  rank  of  28
August 2002.  He was reduced to the grade of airman first class (E-3),  with
a date of rank of 18 June 2003, pursuant to an Article 15.  He received  two
Enlisted Performance Reports closing 15 November 2001 and 15 November  2002,
in which the overall evaluations were 4 (5 being the highest rating).

On 17 October 2001,  he  fraudulently  presented  a  form  to  an  apartment
complex manager in order to regain possession  of  a  $70.00  deposit.   For
this incident, he received an LOR.

On 15 September 2002 and 27 September 2002,  he  was  20  minutes  late  for
work.  For these incidents, he received a Record of  Individual  Counseling.


On 29 September 2002, he failed to report to his place of  duty.   For  this
incident, he received an LOR.

On 20 January 2003, he was charged with disorderly conduct of  a  nature  to
bring discredit upon the armed forces while at  or  near  the  Mandalay  Bay
casino in Las Vegas.   For  this  incident,  punishment  under  Article  15,
Uniform Code of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  was  imposed.   He  received  a
suspended reduction to airman first class, $250 per  month  for  two  months
forfeiture of his pay and a reprimand.

On 16 May 2003 and 17 May 2003, he left his appointed place of duty  without
authority.  For these incidents, his suspended reduction was vacated.

On 12 June 2003, he was disrespectful  towards  a  noncommissioned  officer.
For this incident, he received an LOR.

On  12  August  2003,  the   applicant’s   commander   initiated   discharge
proceedings against him under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
5.49, for minor disciplinary infractions.  The  applicant  was  notified  of
his commander’s recommendation  and  that  a  general  discharge  was  being
recommended.  He was  advised  of  his  rights;  he  consulted  counsel  and
submitted statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the  discharge
case file,  the  staff  judge  advocate  found  it  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with  a  general
discharge and concurred  with  the  commander  that  the  applicant  not  be
considered for  probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  25  August  2003,  the
discharge  authority  directed  that  he  be  discharged  with   a   general
discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions)  and
received a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge.   He  served  3
years, 5 months, and 13 days on active duty.

On 7 September 2004, the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board  reviewed  and
denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, they conclude  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any  errors  or
injustices in the discharge processing.  The  Air  Force  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  highlights  applicant’s  41  months  of  commendable  service   and
provides discussion on  some  of  the  applicant’s  discipline  infractions.
However, the applicant offers no excuse for the behavior  that  resulted  in
the Article 15 on 20 January 2003  but  he  requests  that  the  offense  be
recognized as an  off  duty  minor  disciplinary  infraction.   If  civilian
authorities had prosecuted the offense, punishment would not  have  been  as
severe.

Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant’s request  and  the  available  evidence  of  record,  we  see  no
evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization  of  service.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence  which
would lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file  is
erroneous,  that  his  substantial  rights  were  violated,  or   that   his
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.   However,  should  the
applicant provide  evidence  pertaining  to  his  post  service  activities,
testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know him,  he  may,  of
course, submit a request for clemency at a later time.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
           Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
           Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2004-03918:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
     Exhibit E.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 16 Feb 05.





                                  CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                  Panel Chair