RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00143
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 JULY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wanted to stay in the service and become an  officer,  but  he  got
married to someone he should not have and as  a  result  had  numerous
problems with her.  This affected his service.

Applicant does not provide any documents in  support  of  the  appeal.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 December 1979 in the
grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.    He   was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman  on  19  June  1980  and
airman first class on  19 December  1980.   He  received  four  Airman
Performance Reports (APRs) closing 18 December 1980, 18 December 1981,
18 December 1982 and 24 March 1983, in which the  overall  evaluations
were “9,” “8,” “7,” and “6.”

On 31 March 1983, applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from  the  Air  Force  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The commander  was  recommending  applicant  receive  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge based on the following:
 (1) On 7 February 1983, 1 October 1982, 28 September  1982,  29  June
1982, and 9  October  1981,  he  received  individual  counseling  for
failure to go at the time prescribed.  (2) He received two Letters  of
Reprimand (LORs) for making false statements with  intent  to  prevent
his repayment of government funds, and for failure to go at  the  time
prescribed on 1 through 5 February and 9 February  1982.   (3)  On  24
February 1982, he received an Article  15  for  dereliction  of  duty.
Punishment  consisted  of  a  suspended  reduction  to  airman  and  a
forfeiture of $150.00.  (4) He received  two  verbal  counselings  for
failure to properly pay his just debts in a timely manner;  and  on  7
January 1982, for  failure  to  register  his  vehicle.   (5)  He  was
counseled by his squadron section commander for writing  three  checks
(in the amounts of $10.00,  $37.00  and  $8.90,  plus  $10.00  service
charge for each check  totaling  the  amount  of  $85.90)  which  were
returned for insufficient funds.  (6) On 11 January 1981, he  received
a Letter of Admonishment for speeding.

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 to
be legally sufficient to support separation and recommended  applicant
be discharged with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge
without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge   authority
approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 8 April 1983  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 3 years,  3
months and 20 days of active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at 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 at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 February 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and  response.   On  15  April  2005,  the
applicant  was  invited  to  provide  information  pertaining  to  his
activities since leaving the service (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no
response to his post service activities  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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant has provided no evidence  showing  the  information  in  his
records is erroneous, his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In addition, in view
of the evidence contained in the FBI investigative report, we are  not
inclined to act favorably on the  applicant’s  request  based  on  the
clemency  consideration  of  a  successful  post  service  adjustment.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 17 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00143 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jan 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 4 Feb 05
                 and 15 Apr 05.



                             B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                             Panel Chair