RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03236
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 April 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Documents from past service are currently  affecting  progress  within
the Army National Guard.  Military achievements since last  period  of
active duty far exceeds any wrongdoings while an active duty member.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of  his  separation
document and a copy of his  completion  of  Officer  Candidate  School
certificate.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  17  May  1994  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman on 17 November 1994 and  airman  first  class  on  17 September
1995.  He received one Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  closing  16
January 1996, in which the overall evaluation was “4.”

On 5 September 1996, applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for conduct  prejudicial  to
good  order  and  discipline  and  drug  abuse.   The  commander   was
recommending  applicant  receive  an  under   other   than   honorable
conditions discharge based on the following:  (1)  He  received  three
Articles 15 (on 3 November 1995,  for  being  disorderly.   Punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture  of  $100.00
pay for two months, and 15 days of extra duty.  The reduction  to  the
grade of airman was suspended until 2 May 1996, after  which  time  it
will be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.  On 21
August 1996, he was charged with failing to obey a  lawful  order  and
being drunk and disorderly, both on or about 27 July 1996.  Punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $100.00 pay; and  on  21 August  1996,  for
wrongfully using marijuana  on  divers  occasions  from  on  or  about
1 October 1995 to on or about 1 December 1995.   Punishment  consisted
of reduction to the grade of airman and  forfeiture  of  $200.00  pay.
(2) On 27 October 1995,  he  received  a  Letter  of  Grounding  which
relieved him from flying status; and (3) on 29 May 1996, he received a
Letter of Reprimand for failure to pay a just debt.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel  submitted  a  conditional  waiver
contingent on receipt of no less than an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge.  On 26 September  1996,  applicant  was  notified
that his conditional waiver was rejected and advised that he  had  the
option of submitting  an  unconditional  waiver  or  request  a  board
hearing.   Applicant  waived  his  right  to  a  hearing   before   an
administrative discharge board and did not submit  any  statements  in
his own behalf.  He understood that he may be discharged with an under
other than honorable conditions discharge.

The base legal office and 15th AF/JA reviewed the case file and  found
it legally  sufficient  to  support  separation  and  recommended  the
unconditional waiver be accepted and applicant be discharged  with  an
under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation  and
rehabilitation.

The discharge  authority  accepted  applicant’s  unconditional  waiver
request and directed that he be discharged with an  under  other  than
honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air  Force  on  17  October  1996
under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen (misconduct), with an under  other  than  honorable  conditions
discharge.  He had served two years, five months and one day on active
duty.

On 21 June 2001, applicant submitted an application to the  Air  Force
Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his  under  other  than
honorable conditions discharge to be upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB
considered all the evidence of record and concluded that the discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative  due
process.  However, the board concluded that the overall quality of the
applicant’s  service  was  more  accurately  reflected  by  an   under
honorable     conditions     (general)     discharge.      Applicant’s
characterization of discharge was  thereafter  upgraded  to  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states 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.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 November 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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.   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.   The
applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing,  nor  did  he
provide any facts warranting a change  to  the  narrative  reason  for
separation.    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 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. August Doddato, Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 95, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Nov 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 05.




                             CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                             Panel Chair