RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00161
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 111.02, 126.04

      xxxxxxxxxxxxx    COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION
            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED


MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  17 OCTOBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  be  restored  and  his
promotion to master sergeant (E-7) be reinstated  with  back  pay  and
allowances until present.

3.  His DD Form 214 reflect he was  separated  because  of  retirement
with 20 years service.

4.  He be afforded the opportunity to test for senior master  sergeant
if allowed to finish his enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

His discharge was disproportionate and unwarranted and contradicts the
findings by  the  Air  Force  Audit  Agency,  OSI  and  the  Inspector
General’s office.  The actions taken by the  command  section  clearly
demonstrate their lack of ethics, integrity,  and  fairness  toward  a
highly  respected,  dedicated,  career  oriented  professional.    The
narrative reason for separation “pattern of misconduct” is inaccurate,
unfair, misleading and unjust.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 July  1981.   He
was progressively promoted to the grade of technical  sergeant  (E-6).
The following is a resume of his  EPR  ratings,  commencing  with  the
report closing 3 April 1995.

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

        03 APR 95                 4
        03 APR 96                 4
        03 APR 97                 4
        31 MAY 98                 2 (referral)
        31 May 99                 4

On 27 June 1997, the applicant received a Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)
with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) action for violating a  “No
Contact” order.

On 16 March 1998, the applicant received an LOR with a UIF action  for
dereliction of  duty  by  grossly  mismanaging  the  food  procurement
process.

Records provided by the applicant reflect that he filed  an  Inspector
General (IG) complaint alleging he was the victim of unfair  treatment
by his squadron commander in the form of  disproportionate  punishment
by receiving an LOR; denial of promotion to  master  sergeant;  and  a
referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for  mismanagement  of  the
Nutritional Medicine Section.  The applicant alleged that the squadron
commander did not hold accountable or  take  any  action  against  the
Officer in Charge (OIC), and/or the Noncommissioned Officer in  Charge
(NCOIC).  In a  summary  report  completed  on  14 October  1998,  the
Inquiry Officer (IO) concluded that the allegation regarding no action
taken against the NCOIC  for  the  mismanagement  of  the  Nutritional
Medicine Section was substantiated.  The IO’s recommendation was  that
should the applicant desire redress of the EPR, application should  be
made to the Air Force Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).   Records
reflect the applicant did not exercise his  right  to  appeal  to  the
ERAB.

On 15 January 1999, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ  was
imposed on the applicantfor failing to go for a  mandatory  urinalysis
testing.  His commander imposed punishment in the  in  the  amount  of
$150.00 dollars forfeiture of pay and fifteen (15) days of extra duty.


On 15 June 1999, nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15,  UCMJ  was
imposed for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully  using
his government sponsored credit card for unauthorized purchases.   His
commander imposed punishment in the form of a reduction in rank to the
grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 12 July 1999, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge  action
for a Pattern or Misconduct  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-3208,  para
5.50.2.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s  recommendation
and that a general discharge was being recommended. On 14  July  1999,
the applicant requested an administrative board  hearing  and  lengthy
service probation consideration.  The board found  the  applicant  had
committed four acts of misconduct and  recommended  discharge  with  a
general service characterization without probation and rehabilitation.
 Based on the fact the applicant was credited with more than 19  years
of active military  service,  he  requested  and  was  considered  for
lengthy  service  probation.   On  2  November  1999,  the   discharge
authority approved a general  discharge  and  recommended  he  not  be
offered lengthy service probation.  On 27 December 1999, the Secretary
of the Air Force approved this recommendation and  directed  that  the
approved administrative discharge be executed.

On 3 January  2000,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  a  general
discharge.  He had served 19 years, 6 months and  19  days  on  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant seeks  a  set
aside of only the 15 June 1999  nonjudicial  punishment.   On  15 June
1999, the commander determined that the applicant had wrongfully  used
his government credit card and imposed punishment in  the  form  of  a
reduction in rank to the grade  of  SSgt  (E-5).   JAJM  advises  that
members who wish to contest their  commander’s  determination  or  the
severity of the punishment imposed  may  appeal  to  the  next  higher
commander.  Records show that the applicant declined to exercise  this
right.  The appeal authority could  have  set  aside  the  punishment,
decreased  its  severity,  or  denied  the  appeal.   The   AFLSA/JAJM
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  that  based  upon  the
documentation  on  file,  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors
or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.    The
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ  AFPC/DPPRRP  recommends  denial.   DPPRRP  advises  the  fact  the
applicant had more than 19 years of service entitled  him  to  lengthy
service consideration.  On 27 December 1999, the Secretary of the  Air
Force disapproved  his  request  for  lengthy  service  probation  and
ordered  execution  of  the  general   discharge.    The   AFPC/DPPRRP
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB  states  the  applicant  was
selected for promotion to master  sergeant  during  cycle  96E7  which
would have incremented on 1 July 1997.  However, on 11 June 1997,  the
applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  his  promotion  was  being
withheld because he was part of an  OSI  investigation.   On  25  June
1997, the applicant was issued a LOR for violation of  a  “No  Contact
Order” and as a result of this LOR a UIF was established on  1  August
1997.  The applicant received another LOR on 16 March 1998, which  was
also placed in the UIF, for dereliction of duties.  On  1  June  1998,
the commander notified the applicant he was not recommending  him  for
promotion for cycle 97E7.  The  applicant  then  received  a  referral
report for the period 4 April 1997 to 31  May  1998.   DPPPWB  advises
that in accordance  with  governing  regulations,  a  referral  report
renders a member  ineligible  for  promotion  consideration  for  that
particular cycle.  A member regains eligibility when they  receive  an
EPR with a rating of “3” or higher, is  not  a  referral  report,  and
closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date  (PECD).
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
10 June 2003 for review and comment within 30 days (See Exhibit G).

On  23  October  2003,  applicant’s  counsel  requested  the  case  be
administratively closed pending further review (Exhibit H).

On 28 October 2003, the applicant’s case was  administratively  closed
in accordance with his request (Exhibit I).

On 18 April 2006, applicant’s counsel requested the  applicant’s  case
be reopened (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

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  to  warrant  upgrading   the
applicant’s general discharge to honorable,  his  grade  of  technical
sergeant be restored with promotion to master sergeant reinstated, his
DD Form 214 reflect retirement and he be afforded the  opportunity  to
test for senior master sergeant.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he was erroneously or unjustly discharged.  In cases of this
nature, we are not inclined to disturb the discretionary judgments  of
commanding officers in the absence of a strong  showing  of  abuse  of
authority.  We have no such showing here.  Other than  the  assertions
of the applicant, we have seen no evidence indicating the  information
in the available discharge case file was  erroneous,  his  substantial
rights were violated, or his  commanders  abused  their  discretionary
authority.  Furthermore,  the  applicant  has  not  provided  any  new
evidence or information  unavailable  to  his  commanders  during  his
discharge proceedings.  Applicant's assertions have been addressed  by
the appropriate Air Force offices and have not been  rebutted  by  the
applicant.  Therefore, in view of the above, 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-2006-
00161 in Executive Session on 26 July 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
              Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
00161 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 25 Mar 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Apr 03..
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 14 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 May 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, American Legion, dated 23 Oct 03.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Oct 03.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, American Legion, dated 18 Apr 06.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, AFOSI Report, dated 7 Jul 06,
               WITHDRAWN.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair