RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03504
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NOT
INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged due to misconduct (minor disciplinary  infractions).
His misconduct was due to marital discord and youthful nature  of  the
participants.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 July 1980, the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman first class (A1C) for a period of four years.

On 21 July 1983, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent
to recommend him for discharge  under  the  provision  of  Air  Force
Regulation  (AFR)   39-10,   paragraph   5-46,   Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 19 December 1980, the  applicant  received  a  DD  Form
1408, Armed Forces Ticket for speeding on base.

      b.    On 5 January 1982, the applicant received  notice  of  two
unsatisfactory housing inspections on 20 November 1981 and 21 December
1981.

      c.    On  6  April  1982,  the  applicant  failed  to  attend  a
scheduled Safety Education Class.

      d.    On 16 July  1982,  the  applicant  was  charged  by  civil
authorities for public drunkenness.  For this misconduct, he  received
a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was
established  on  21  July  1982  and  on  9  September  1982,  he  was
nonrecommended for promotion.

      e.    On 27 August 1982, the applicant’s bank returned  a  check
for insufficient funds.

      f.    On 3 December 1982, the applicant’s bank returned a  check
for insufficient funds.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 14
December   1982   and   a   UIF   was   established   for    financial
irresponsibility.

      g.    On 29 December 1982,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a
domestic disturbance.  For this misconduct, he received  a  letter  of
counseling (LOC).

      h.    On 12 February 1983,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a
domestic disturbance.

      i.    On 26 February 1983,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  a
domestic disturbance.  For this misconduct, he received an  LOR  on  3
March 1983.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following
derogatory information:

      a.    On 10 August 1981,  the  applicant  received  an  LOC  for
unsatisfactory progress in the weight management program (WMP).

      b.    On 19 January 1982, the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
unsatisfactory progress on the WMP.

The applicant received four performance reports while on active  duty.
He received an  overall  rating  of  seven  on  all  four  performance
reports.

The commander advised the applicant of his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been  obtained  for  him;
submit statements in his own behalf;  and  that  failure  to  consult
counsel or to submit statements would  constitute  a  waiver  of  his
right to do so.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge  that  the
several administrative action were taken in an effort to  rehabilitate
the applicant.

On 22 July 1983, after consulting with counsel, the  applicant  waived
his right to submit a statement.

On 29 July 1983 a legal review was conducted in which the staff  judge
advocate recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 2 August 1983, the discharge authority approved and directed  the
applicant be discharged with a general discharge  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 3 August 1983, in the  grade  of  senior
airman (SRA) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge,
in accordance with AFR 39-10  Administrative  Separation  of  Airman
(Misconduct - Pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).  He served
a total of 3 years and 24 days of active service.

Pursuant  to  the   Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
December 2005, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 28 December 2005, the Board staff requested the  applicant  provide
documentation  concerning  his  activities  since   leaving   military
service.  As of this date, the applicant has  not  responded  (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 an error or an injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the
applicant’s discharge.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  agree  with
the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears the processing of the discharge and  the  characterization  of
the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air
Force policy.   The  Board  has  considered  the  applicant’s  overall
quality of service and in view of the numerous instances of misconduct
during the time he was on active duty, does not  believe  clemency  is
warranted.  The Board further notes the applicant failed to respond to
the   request   for   documentation   regarding    his    post-service
accomplishments and activities.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in 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-
2005-03504  in  Executive  Session  on  7  February  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket No. BC-
2005-03504 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Dec 05, w/atch.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair