RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
01619
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 NOVEMBER 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has faithfully and honorably  been  a  good  ambassador  to  the
United States of America and is deserving of this request.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  8  Oct  87,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade  held  was  airman  first  class.   He  received  one  Airman
Performance Report (APR) with an overall rating of 8.

On 10 Mar 88, applicant’s squadron section commander  notified  him
that she was withholding his promotion to airman (E-2),  which  was
to be effective on 8 Apr 88.  The specific reason  for  the  action
was his participation in the Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Program.   On
21 Apr 88, the withhold status was terminated and he  was  promoted
to airman (E-2).

On 21 Apr 89, applicant’s squadron commander notified him  that  he
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct
- minor disciplinary infractions.   He  recommended  the  applicant
receive a general discharge based on the following reasons:  (1) On
or about 21 Feb 88, applicant was drunk on station; (2) On or about
27 May 88, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure  to
obey a lawful order; (3) On or about 9 Jun 88, he received  an  LOC
for being derelict  in  the  performance  of  his  duties;  (4)  He
received an Article 15 on 6 Jan 89, for failure to  obey  a  lawful
order on or about  21  Dec  88;  punishment  imposed  consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman basic, and forfeiture of $355  per
month for two months (forfeiture in excess of $50 pay per month for
two months suspended until 4  Jul  89);  and  (5)  He  received  an
Article 15 on 15 Mar 89, for wrongfully and unlawfully  subscribing
under lawful oath a false statement; punishment imposed was 30 days
of correctional custody and forfeiture of $100 per  month  for  two
months (suspended until 10 Sep 89).  The 30  days  of  correctional
custody was remitted on 10 Apr 89.  During his correctional custody
applicant received 45 letters of counseling.

On 21 Apr 89, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge and, after consulting with counsel, waived his  right  to
submit statements in his own behalf.

The Staff Judge Advocate  reviewed  the  case  file  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support discharge and  recommended  an  under
honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority  approved  the  separation
and directed an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 26 May  89,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic, under the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Misconduct-Pattern  of
Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and  received  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He was issued an  RE  Code  of  2B
[separated with a general discharge].  He served on active duty for
1 year, 7 months, and 17 days.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that 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.   Additionally,  the  applicant  provided  no
evidence or identified any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change
to the character of service.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  provided  a  response  addressing   each   incident   of
misconduct in detail.  He feels his mistakes were  not  necessarily
nor justifiably so  in  receiving  an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge from the Air  Force.   He  has  seen  instances
where in today’s military airmen have been given lenient courtesies
to adjust to the military lifestyle.

He submits a letter of character reference from a coworker.

His complete response, with attachment, 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 available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing regulations in  effect  at  the
time and we find no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  applicant’s
separation from the  Air  Force  was  inappropriate.   We  find  no
evidence of error in this case and after  of  thoroughly  reviewing
the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant’s
appeal, we do not  believe  he  has  suffered  from  an  injustice.
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 Docket Number BC-2005-
01619 in Executive Session on 21 July 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jun 05, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair