RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02604
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 FEB 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable  and  the  narrative  reason  “Misconduct-Pattern  of  minor
disciplinary infractions” be stricken from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was an exemplary airman. His problems all stem from extremely minor
infractions that were handled very harshly by his  chain  of  command.
The characterization is  clearly  inequitable  in  the  light  of  his
service record.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a letter
from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

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
1 December 1987 for a period of four years and progressed to the grade
of airman first class.

On 4 April 1990,  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  based   on   the
following:

      (1) On 19 March 1990, he was evaluated for alcohol abuse.

      (2) On 15 March 1990, he received a  Record  of  Counseling  for
failure to complete the fire department physical fitness program.

      (3) On 27 February 1990, he received a Record of Counseling  for
failure to attend a scheduled out processing appointment.

      (4) On 20 February 1990, he received a Record of Counseling  for
negligently damaging a government owned vehicle.

      (5) On 15 January 1990, he received a Record of  Counseling  for
failure to go to a scheduled appointment.

      (6) On 6 October 1989, he  received  an  Article  15  for  being
disorderly in public.

      (7) On 8 June 1989, he received a Letter of Reprimand for  being
disorderly in public.

      (8) On 6 June 1989, he  received  a  Record  of  Counseling  for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

      (9) On 5 December 1988, he received a Record of  Counseling  for
failure to keep his pager operational.

      (10) On 21 September 1988, he received a  Record  of  Counseling
for failure to go at the time prescribed to  his  appointed  place  of
duty.

      (11) On 1 August 1988, he received a Record  of  Counseling  for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

      (12) On or about 27 July to 25 August 1988, he negligently wrote
six checks with insufficient funds.

Applicant acknowledges receipt of notification of discharge and  after
consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit statements in
his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed his case and  found  it
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant
receive  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)   discharge.   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 1990, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10,  Administrative  Separation   of   Airmen,   (minor   disciplinary
infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in
the grade of airman. He served 2 years, 5 months and 8 days  of  total
active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  and  stated   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.   Applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his  character
of service or narrative reason for separation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
September 2005, for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response 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 warranting a change
in his  discharge  and  narrative  reason  for  separation.   After
careful consideration of  the  available  evidence,  the  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing manual in effect  at
the time and we find no evidence to indicate that  the  applicant’s
separation from the Air Force  was  inappropriate.   Therefore,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force  office
of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice and in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought
in 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  issue   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 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-
2005-02604 in Executive Session  on  13  October  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sept 05.





      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair