RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01458
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  03 NOVEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded  to
honorable and the  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  to
convenience of the government.

2.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active
Duty be corrected to show he was awarded the Iraq  Service  Medal  and
the War on Terrorism Service Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge from the Air Force was unjust  and  unfair  due  to  the
administrative actions against him which denied him due process.

In support of the appeal, applicant  submits  personal  statements,  a
copy of  his  DD  Form  214,  and  a  copy  of  his  orders  to  Iraq.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 August  2002  for  a
period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of  airman  on  20
February 2003.  He received  one  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)
closing 20 April 2004, in which the overall evaluation was “2.”

On 23 August 2004, applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the  Air  Force  for  misconduct  -  minor
disciplinary infractions.  The commander  was  recommending  applicant
receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge based on the
following:  (1) On or about 30 November 2002, he  wrongfully  consumed
alcoholic beverages while underage.  (2) On or about 11 March 2004, he
wrongfully attempted to cheat  on  his  Emergency  Medical  Technician
course final examination.  (3) On or about 11 March 2004, he  stole  a
copy of the Emergency Medical  Technician  course  final  examination,
military property.  (4) On or about 4 August 2004, before  the  enemy,
he caused a false alarm in Kirkuk Air Base by needlessly  and  without
authority sounding the general alarm.  (5) On or about 5 August  2004,
without   authority he failed to go at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty (Kirkuk Air Base Fire Station One).  Applicant
acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  of  discharge  and,  after
consulting with legal counsel, submitted statements in his own behalf.
 The base legal office reviewed the case file  and  found  it  legally
sufficient  to  support  discharge  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  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 22 September 2004  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct), with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.
He had served two years, one month and three days on active duty.

On 18 October 2004, applicant submitted  an  application  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting  his  under  honorable
conditions (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable  and  the
narrative  reason  for  separation  changed  to  convenience  of   the
government.  The AFDRB considered  all  the  evidence  of  record  and
concluded the misconduct was  a  significant  departure  from  conduct
expected of all military  members  and  the  characterization  of  the
discharge received by the applicant was  appropriate.   The  Discharge
Review Board concluded that the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation
and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and applicant
was provided full administrative due process (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

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 C.

On 10 May 2005, applicant was  informed  of  his  entitlement  to  the
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for his service  in  Iraq.
He  was  further  informed  that  the  Iraq  Campaign  Medal  and  the
Afghanistan Campaign Medal criteria for authorization and  wear  would
be determined by the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  at  a  later  date
(Exhibit D).

On 17 May 2005, applicant was informed that there was an error on  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.   A
DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, has been completed to  correct
item 13 to show that  he  is  the  recipient  of  the  Global  War  on
Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for his service in Iraq (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 May 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

The father of the applicant provided a statement saying that  his  son
has done very well since his discharge.  He is a proud member  of  the
local VFW and is involved in  many  civic  events.   He  attended  and
completed an Emergency Medical Technician Course at a  local  hospital
and is nationally certified.  He has worked  at  a  local  bank  as  a
teller for several months and is on the top of the list for a position
as a mail carrier with the United States Postal Office.   He  strongly
feels that his son should not have to continue to pay  for  the  minor
mistakes he made the rest of his life.  He only asks  that  the  Board
try and see past his son’s minor mistakes and realize that he has been
punished enough and grant him the relief he requested.  A copy of  the
father's letter 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence  of  record  and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  the
majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s  discharge
was erroneous or unjust.  The applicant has provided no evidence  that
would lead the Board  majority  to  believe  the  information  in  the
discharge  case  file  is  erroneous,  his  substantial  rights   were
violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or  his
service, when weighed against his infractions against the  good  order
and discipline of the service,  warranted  a  better  characterization
than the one he received.  We note the statements of the applicant and
his father  pertaining  to  his  post-service  activities.   While  we
encourage the applicant to continue in his  endeavors,  since  it  has
been less than a year since his separation, the Board majority  is  of
the opinion that sufficient time has not passed for the  applicant  to
demonstrate he has now  achieved  a  level  of  maturity  required  to
successfully serve in  the  highly  structured  military  environment.
Therefore, the applicant’s requests that his discharge be upgraded and
the reason for his separation be changed are not favorably considered.

4.  We  noted  the  applicant’s  records  have  been  administratively
corrected to show his entitlement  to  the  Global  War  on  Terrorism
Expeditionary Medal.  As to the applicant’s request for award  of  the
Iraq service Medal, since administratively relief may be possible with
respect to this award, action by this Board  at  this  time  would  be
inappropriate.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 July 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb voted to correct the  records  pertaining  to  the
applicant’s discharge but does not desire to submit a Minority Report.
 The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 May 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 10 May 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 17 May 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
      Exhibit G. Letter from Applicant’s Father, dated 1 Jun 05.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-01458



MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and
their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept
their recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency