RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00427

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 AUG 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been out of the service for 21 years  and  has  an  outstanding
record and numerous achievements. Yes, he has paid a heavy  price  for
what he has done. Over the years, it has affected his life.  He  needs
the upgrade to further his work history and National Guard clearances.


In support of his application, applicant submits  a  letter  from  his
congressman,  certification  of  military  service,   DD   Form   214,
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,   college
transcript, certificates of appreciation and resume.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
30 September 1982.

On 9  May  1984,  he  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending him for a discharge for a pattern of  minor  disciplinary
infractions and recommended a general discharge.  Basis for the action
was:

      (1) On 23 November 1982, he received an  Article  15  for  being
disorderly on station and violation of a lawful general order.

      (2) On 23 December 1982, he received a positive urine  test  for
THC.

      (3) On 21 October 1983, he received a Letter  of  Reprimand  for
being disorderly on station.

      (4) On 2 March 1984, he received an  Article  15  for  drunk  on
station.

The applicant acknowledge 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 reviewed the case
and found it legally sufficient to support separation and  recommended
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.

On 7 June 1984, the applicant was involuntarily discharged  under  the
provision of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct -  Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions) with service characterized as  general  (under  honorable
conditions) in the grade of airman first class.  He served 3 years,  3
months and 10 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board's request for information, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) indicated that, on the basis  of  the  information
provided, they were unable to locate an arrest  record  pertaining  to
the applicant (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated, based on  the  documentation
in the file, they  believe  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.
Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  proceedings.   Nor  did  he
provide any facts warranting an upgrade in the his  character  of  his
discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  stated  that  in
regards to the decision that was made at the time of his discharge, he
does not disagree with the law  and  procedures.   He  has  a  lot  of
discipline and knows right from wrong, but at that  time,  he  had  no
knowledge of the military law and he was too young to understand long-
term repercussions.  If he were in his  commander’s  shoes,  he  would
have done the same thing.  But  he  would  have  researched  a  little
further to find out how is it this airman continues to get in  trouble
a hundred yards from the barracks each week and always on  a  weekend.
He was so young and very aggressive and competitive that all  it  took
was other aggressive airmen to engage or to slander others into an all
out mayhem.  There was a lot of drinking and women on base and  a  lot
of bashing between squadron versus squadron.  This is true and  people
would protect themselves in these circumstances.  Right or  wrong,  it
was going on.  And yes, he says, thank God he got  out  of  that  duty
station, it saved his life.   If  the  Board  looks  up  his  work  or
professional history, the Board will find excellence.  He did not want
to lose his career and he has great  respect  for  his  superiors  and
leaders and always did well  by  following  their  orders  with  great
pride.  Even his old commander and leaders tried to get him  back  and
save him from the outcome.  Every mission, including things  that  are
classified, he has done very well.   This off duty  behavior,  had  no
real bearing, but now had he known this, it would have been different.
That old saying kids will be kids is very true and will  always  fight
to see who is better than the other.  Some wanted action all the time,
including the young police and security forces. They loved the  action
and did not like to lose.  How could he explain this to the  commander
and first sergeant?  Believe him, it’s hard to go  in  front  of  your
superiors and try to explain.  All they could do is  get  rid  of  all
these problems by paperwork and formalities.  He  can  understand  the
humility and grief that he created for his commander, but he  was  not
the only one at that time--many other airmen did the  same.  He  would
very much like to go in front of the Board to speak in his behalf.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  We find no improperiety  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. Although the  applicant  states  that  he  has  been  a
productive  member  of  society,  he  has  not   provided   sufficient
information of post-service activities and accomplishments for  us  to
conclude that his discharge should be upgraded based on clemency.   In
view of the above we find no basis to warrant favorable action on this
application.

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 a 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00427 in Executive Session on 24 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 28 Mar 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Feb 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Mar 05






      MARILYN M. THOMAS
      Vice Chair