RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03325
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
Item 1 (Name), be corrected to reflect the middle  name  of  Carlton  rather
than Carton.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The applicant’s middle name on his DD Form  214  has  been
corrected and a DD Form 215 Correction to the DD Form 214  has  been  issued
to the applicant.  Therefore,  the  only  issue  before  the  Board  is  the
upgrade of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been given an honorable discharge based on his  character  of
service.  He further indicates he was  advised  by  counsel  to  accept  the
general discharge instead of appearing before a discharge board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 14 January 1982 for a period of six years.

On 11 April 1989, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate  discharge  action  against  him  for  a  pattern   of   misconduct
consisting of  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline.   The
specific reasons follow:

        a.  On or about 9 April 1987,  while  on  temporary  duty  (TDY)  to
Saudi  Arabia,  he  was  disrespectful  to  his  superior  in  that  he  was
belligerent, swearing, and insubordinate.

        b.  On 18 April 1987, he was disrespectful to his superior  in  that
he swore at him.

        c.  On or about 12 June 1987, he was disrespectful to  his  superior
by saying, “In my mind, you are not officer material,” in  the  presence  of
others.

        d.  From 2 February 1988 to 3 March 1988, his duty  performance  was
substandard in that he showed a lack of initiative and made  no  attempt  to
be trained.  He either made excuses for why he didn’t have time, or else  he
was seen reading various  newspapers  while  on  duty  and  while  remaining
behind in his training.

        e.  On 26 February 1988, he was given a letter of  counseling  (LOC)
for  inferior  duty  performance.   Specifically,  classified  material  was
mishandled.  He stated that the incident which took  place  was  unfortunate
and that he understood its severity.

        f.  On or about 3 March 1988, without authority, he failed to go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty,  to  wit:   he  did  not
report for duty by 0730.

        g.  On 7 March 1988, he  was  ten  minutes  late  for  duty  without
proper authority.  Since this was a recurring problem, he  received  an  LOC
dated 8 March 1988.

        h.  On 16 March 1988, he failed to obey a direct order  in  that  he
failed to complete tasks that were assigned to  him  on  or  about  7  March
1988.

        i.  On or about 8 January 1988, he wrote a check in  the  amount  of
$162.50 to the Pruem Consolidated  Open  Mess,  which  was  dishonored  upon
presentment for payment.  He acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  of
dishonored check letter dated 28 March 1988 on 7 April 1988.

        j.  On 15 March 1988, he wrote a check in the amount of  $500.00  on
the American Express Bank to the Accounting and Finance Office at Pruem  Air
Station which was dishonored upon presentment  for  payment.   On  13  April
1988, he acknowledged receipt of the dishonored check notice dated 11  April
1988.

        k.  He failed to pay a just debt in a  timely  manner,  in  that  he
became indebted to an airman in  the  amount  of  $1,500.00  on  23 December
1987.  As of 11 August 1988, he failed to honorably dispose of the debt.

        l.  He was financially irresponsible in that his account with  Eglin
Air Force Base Federal Credit Union  was  seriously  delinquent  because  he
stopped an allotment to said bank on 1 June 1988 and he made no  attempt  to
make corrective action as of 25 August 1988.

        m.  He became indebted to the Eglin Air Force Base Credit  Union  in
1985 or 1986.  On 25 August 1988 the amount of the debt which  was  due  and
payable was $1,314.00.  From 25 August  1988  through  20  January  1989  he
dishonorably failed to pay this debt.

        n.  On 6 February 1989, he failed to go at the  time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty, to wit:  He missed his promotion  testing  date
for 0730 hours as scheduled with the special test control officer (STCO).

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to appear before an administrative discharge board, to submit statements  in
his own behalf, or waive his rights after consulting with counsel.

In his recommendation for discharge action, the commander indicated  he  had
attempted to rehabilitate the applicant’s conduct through use of  counseling
and other administrative admonishments concerning the penalty for  financial
irresponsibility and misconduct.  He further indicated he did not  recommend
probation and  rehabilitation  according  to  AFR  39-10,  Chapter  7.   The
applicant had repeatedly been counseled  concerning  squadron  policies  and
the consequences of  misconduct  and  unsatisfactory  performance.   He  had
displayed a total disregard for his obligations and this  had  affected  his
job performance,  peers,  and  his  work  center.   As  an  airman,  he  had
responsibilities to his peers in that he had to set an example  -  financial
irresponsibility and misconduct  were  not  conducive  to  this  end.   This
coupled with his extremely negative attitude and  unwillingness  to  conform
to established  standards  indicates  he  was  unconsenting  to  accept  the
military way of life.  Based on his actions, his verbal  comments,  attitude
and inability to adapt, the commander felt  further  rehabilitation  efforts
would have proved  futile.   The  discharge  was  in  the  applicant’s  best
interest and that of the United States Air Force.

On 15 May 1989, after consulting with counsel,  the  applicant  submitted  a
conditional  waiver  of  his  rights  associated  with   an   administrative
discharge board hearing.  The waiver was contingent on  his  receipt  of  no
less than a general discharge.

On 5 June and 3 July 1989, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate and  Staff  Judge
Advocate recommended the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted  and  he
be issued a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On  6  July  1989,  the  discharge  authority   approved   the   applicant’s
conditional waiver and general discharge.

On 21 July 1989, the applicant was discharged in the grade of senior  airman
with service characterized as general (under  honorable  conditions),  under
the provisions of AFR 39-10 - Misconduct - Pattern  Conduct  Prejudicial  to
Good Order and Discipline.  He served 11 years, 11 months,  and  4  days  of
total active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that the discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   Nor  did  he  provide  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 December 2005, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant and counsel for review and response  within  30 days  (Exhibit
E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 1 February 2006, the Board provided  the  applicant  the  opportunity  to
respond to the FBI report within 20 days (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 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  injustice.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence to  the  contrary,
the Board presumes responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.   Therefore,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
03325 in Executive Session on 23 February 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Dec 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 06, w/atch.




                       LAURENCE M. GRONER
                       Panel Chair