RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02773
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 March 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant did not submit any contentions nor documents in  support
of the appeal.

Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 March 1979 for a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman on 5 May 1979, airman first  class  on  5  November  1979,  and
senior airman on 1 July 1981.  He received  three  Airman  Performance
Reports (APRs) closing 8 April 1980, 8 April 1981 and 15  April  1982,
in which the overall evaluations were “8,” “8,” and “8.”

On 22 October 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending  discharge  from  the  Air   Force   for   unsatisfactory
performance.   The  commander  was  recommending  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge based on the following:   (1)  On  four
occasions (15 April 1980, 5 December 1980,  19  October  1981  and  16
February 1982), Unfavorable Information Files (UIFs) were established.
 The first for  failure  to  show  proper  disposition  of  tax-exempt
property; second for failure to provide  support  to  his  dependents;
third for failure to go; and fourth for attempting  to  cover  up  the
true facts and circumstances of an  accident.   (2)  On  10  September
1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure  to  go.   (3)  He
received three Articles 15, first dated 2 April 1980, on or  about  12
March 1980, he failed to obey a lawful order by failing to show proper
disposition of tax-exempt property when requested to do so by a member
of the Security Police.  Punishment  consisted  of  reduction  to  the
grade of airman, but this punishment was  suspended  until  4  October
1980, at which time, unless this suspension  was  sooner  vacated,  it
would be remitted without further action.  Second, dated  9  September
1981, for failure to go.  Punishment consisted  of  reduction  to  the
grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per  month  for
two months, and 30 days of correctional custody, but the execution  of
that portion of the punishment which provides for the reduction to the
grade of airman first class was suspended until 26 February  1982,  at
which time, it would be remitted  unless  this  suspension  is  sooner
vacated.  And, third, dated 10 September 1982, for preparing  a  false
official document and for dereliction in the performance of his duties
by failing to remain awake while on  duty.   Punishment  consisted  of
reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class.   (4)  On  17  and
28 September 1982, he received notices of dishonored checks  he  wrote
(in the amounts of $25.00 and $2.30).

The 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  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant
receive an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without
further rehabilitation attempts.  The discharge authority approved the
separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an under
honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without   probation   and
rehabilitation.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant’s
request.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force  on  12  November  1982
under the provision s  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen  (unsatisfactory  performance),   with   an   under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He had served 3 years, 7  months  and
22 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states 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  also  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 September 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review  and  response  within  30  days.   On  17
October  2005,  the  applicant  was  invited  to  provide  information
pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.   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 their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  note
that the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 March 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josaephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02773 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Sep 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Sep 05, AFBCMR,
                       dated 17 Oct 05 and 7 Nov 05.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair