RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03099
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 APR 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He became aware that after six months he could  get  his  discharge
upgraded or it would be upgraded automatically.  He  has  lost  his
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, dated 12 Aug 88, and did not know how  to  get  a  new
copy until now.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, applicant enlisted  in  the  Army
National Guard on 7 Aug 80.  He was released from  extended  active
duty (EAD) on 21 Jan 81, with a Reserve Obligation Termination Date
of 7 Feb 86.  He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Apr 86 for
a period of four years in the grade of airman (Amn/E-2).

On 12 Jan  88,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge   action   against   the   applicant   for    misconduct,
specifically, a pattern of misconduct of discreditable  involvement
with military or civil authorities.  The specific reasons  for  the
proposed action were:

      On or about (o/a) 3 Sep  86,  applicant  operated  a  vehicle
while intoxicated.   For  this  offense,  he  received  Article  15
punishment.  His punishment consisted  of  reduction  in  grade  to
airman basic and forfeiture of $100 pay per month for two months.

      O/a 6 Nov 87, applicant failed to go at the  time  prescribed
to his appointed place of duty.   For  this  offense,  he  received
Article 15 punishment.  His punishment  consisted  of  a  suspended
reduction to the grade of airman basic until 19 May 88.

      O/a 23 and 24 Dec 87, he failed to go at the prescribed  time
to his appointed place of duty.   For  this  offense,  he  received
Article 15 punishment.  His punishment consisted of vacation of his
suspended reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  basic  with  a  new
effective date and date of rank of 30 Dec 87.

      Other incidents supporting the recommended action  were:   on
22 May 87, applicant made  false/misleading  statements  concerning
his whereabouts to his branch superintendent and  squadron  section
commander.  For this offense, he received a Letter  of  Counseling.
On 27 Aug 87, he was verbally counseled for failing to pay a  debt.
On 6 Nov 87, he was arrested for felony DUI, his second.  For  this
offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand, with the  establishment
of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  On 24 Nov 87, a  special
security file  was  started  on  the  applicant.   On  14  Dec  87,
applicant’s commander was informed that he had been arrested for  a
third time  DUI.   For  this  offense,  he  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand.  On 6 Jan 87, applicant’s privileges  at  the  NCO  Club
were suspended  due  to  a  delinquent  account.   On  22  Jun  88,
applicant was  arrested  by  civil  authorities  for  DUI,  evading
arrest, speeding/running stops, providing false information,  lying
to a  police  officer,  and  no  proof  of  insurance.   For  these
offenses, he received a Letter of Reprimand.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.  On 7 Jul 88,  the  squadron  commander  provided  an
addendum  to  his  recommendation  for  discharge   letter,   dated
22 Jan 88.  On 11 Jul 88, after consulting with counsel, he  waived
his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and
submitted statements in his own behalf.

On 26 Jul 88, the assistant staff judge advocate,  found  the  case
file  to  be  legally  sufficient  to  support   separation.    She
recommended acceptance of the unconditional waiver  and  separation
with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC), without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was entitled to an administrative  board  hearing  by
virtue of his continuous military service in excess of  six  years.
He requested an administrative board  hearing,  but  prior  to  the
hearing date, he was hospitalized  and  processed  for  a  Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).  As a result of the PEB, the applicant  was
declared medically unfit for duty and recommended for an  honorable
discharge.  Due  to  the  action  of  the  PEB  the  administrative
discharge was processed as a dual action IAW  AFR  39-10,  para  6-
30(c) and AFR 35-4, para 1-3(d).

On 29 Jul 88, the discharge authority  accepted  the  unconditional
waiver and  approved  an  under  other  than  honorable  conditions
discharge and stated that  probation  and  rehabilitation  was  not
warranted.  On 5 Aug 88, the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel
Council directed the applicant be discharged by  execution  of  the
approved AFR 39-10 action and terminated the AFR 35-4 action.

On 12 Aug 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10 by  reason  of  Misconduct  –  Pattern  of  Discreditable
Involvement with Military and Civilian  Authorities,  with  service
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He  served
1 year, 10 months, and 18 days on active duty (excludes 22 Jun 88 –
5 Jul 88 and 1 Aug 88 – 12 Aug 88 for confinement).

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:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided  no  other
facts warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 4 Nov 05 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 9 Feb 06, a  copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for comment.   At  that  time,  the  applicant  was  also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the  service  (Exhibit  F).   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 timely filed.

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 evidence of record, we found no evidence  that
the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulations  in  effect  at  the
time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on
factors other  than  his  own  misconduct.   The  Board  noted  the
applicant’s prior honorable period  of  service.   Nonetheless,  in
view of the seriousness of the offenses committed during the period
of service under review, the contents of the FBI  report,  and  the
absence of evidence related  to  his  post-service  activities  and
accomplishments, we are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge is  warranted  on  the  basis  of
clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error
or injustice  and  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  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(s)  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-03099 in Executive Session on  14  March  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair