RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00335

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 JULY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (Under Honorable  Conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On the 10th day of January 1991, he received  an  honorable  discharge
and was allowed to reenlist.  It was not until he was acquitted for  a
positive test for cocaine that he  was  considered  a  person  with  a
pattern of misconduct.  He has recently completed a Bachelor's  Degree
from DeVry University in Electronic Engineer Technology  with  honors.
In the professional field, it would be easier to not have to explain a
general discharge.  He  has  not  been  in  any  trouble  since  being
discharged and has even tried to better himself. The  issue  with  the
Air Force is old, and he would like to be considered for a  change  in
discharge.

In support  of  his  appeal  he  provided  a  copy  of  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 June 1981. He was
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with an  effective  date
and date of rank of 25 October 1990.

On 16 March 1992, the applicant's commander notified him that  he  was
recommending him for discharge from the Air  Force  for  misconduct  -
pattern of misconduct.  The commander  recommended  a  general  (under
other than honorable conditions) discharge based on the following:  1.
On 3 July 1991, he received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  for  threatening
another noncommissioned officer  (NCO);  2.   On  29  August  1991,  a
summary  court-martial  found  him  guilty  of  being  absent  without
authority; 3. On 18 February 1992, he received a Letter  of  Reprimand
for failure to repay a debt; 4. On 5 March 1992, he received a  Letter
of Reprimand for making a threatening phone call to a civilian female.


Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
did not  waive  his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an  administrative
discharge  board.   On  3  April  1992,  he  was  notified   that   an
administrative discharge board would  convene  on  14  April  1992  to
determine if he should be discharged prior to his expiration  term  of
service (ETS).  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and
he understood  his  rights.   On  14  April  1992,  an  administrative
discharge  board  convened  to  determine  if  applicant   should   be
discharged prior to his  expiration  term  of  service  because  of  a
pattern of misconduct.  The administrative discharge board recommended
that  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The  base
legal office reviewed the case and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to
support separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the  separation  and
directed the applicant be discharged with a general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 8 May 1992, the applicant was separated from the  Air  Force  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct-pattern  of  misconduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and
discipline), with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.
He served 10 years, 11 months and  1  day  of  total  active  military
service.

On 1 November 1995, the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of  discharge  and
concluded that there existed no legal or equitable basis for  upgrade;
thus, the applicant's request was denied.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  FBI  provided  a  copy  of  an
Investigative Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.


The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors

or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He  provided
no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.


AFPC/DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he is just
trying to get the type of discharge changed to  honorable  because  he
has recently graduated from college with honors, and does not want the
general discharge to be on his application.  He is  currently  working
in Ohio as a Correctional Officer and has been for the past eleven and
a half years.  He does not want to reenlist into the military, and has
all the benefits as someone with  an  honorable  discharge.   He  just
wants the change for employment purposes.

Applicant reviewed the FBI report and stated that he was in his  house
at the time of the alleged incident in question.  His  youngest  son's
mother had came over to his house upset,  he  is  not  sure  what  the
incident was about, however, both parties had a lot of  problems  back
then.  They were not married at that time.  At no time did he  assault
or cause any violent to this woman.  They fussed in his house and  she
trashed/broke some items in his house, i.e., the living room table and
wall pictures.  She then went to her  house  and  called  the  police,
telling them that he had hit her.  The police stated that there was no
evidence of any violence to  her  person,  but  because  there  was  a
compliant filed, he had to go downtown to jail.  He went to court  and
all charges were dropped, and he was told not to be around this woman.
They went to counseling, but still had other incidents  of  arguments.
She is now his wife, and has been since 1998.  He is willing to take a
lie detector test if needed to prove his innocence, especially on  the
date in question.

Applicant's response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Based upon  the  presumption  of
regularity  in  the  conduct  of  governmental  affairs  and   without
persuasive evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise,  we  must
assume that the applicant's discharge was  proper  and  in  compliance
with appropriate directives.  The  only  other  basis  upon  which  to
upgrade his discharge would be based on clemency.  However, in view of
the contents of  the  FBI  report,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  his
discharge warrants an upgrade based on 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-
2005-00335 in Executive Session on 6 April 2005, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 11 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2005.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Mar 05.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair