RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03437,
                                  CASE 2
            INDEX CODE: 110.02
            COUNSEL:  SERVICE MEMBERS LEGAL
                          DEFENSE NETWORK
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 MAY 2007

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect:

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

      b.    Item 11 of his DD Form 214 be  changed  from  55110-Pavements
Maintenance Helper to Bomb and Gun Range Specialist.

      c.    Award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal  (AFGCM),  National
Defense Service Medal (NDSM), Kosovo Campaign Medal (KCM),  Armed  Forces
Service Medal (AFSM), Air Force Training Ribbon  (AFTR),  United  Nations
Medal (UNM),  NATO  Medal  for  Yugoslavia  (NATO-Y)  and  the  Cold  War
Certificate (CWC).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  DD  Form  214  reflects  his  occupation  as  Roads  and   Pavements
Maintenance.  The 58th Combat Support Squadron at Gila Bend, Arizona  had
a waiver in place and re-assigned personnel to the bomb  and  gun  ranges
with the occupation title Bomb and Gun Range Specialist.

If his  youthful  indiscretion  had  occurred  today  in  Korea,  Kosovo,
Afghanistan or Iraq perhaps the outcome of his discharge  may  have  been
different.

His DD Form 214 should reflect awards to which he was entitled to  during
his period of service.

In support of his application, applicant submits personal statements,  DD
Form 214, Certificate for NATO Medal for Yugoslavia, Memorandums, Service
Medal Award Verification, TDY Orders, News Article, and a Certificate  of
Recognition.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 December 1979, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

The applicant’s Airman  Performance  Report  for  the  28  December  1979
through 27 December 1980, Item II Job Description reflects Unit, Bomb/Gun
Range Scoring Specialist.

On 2 March 1981, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend him for discharge for financial irresponsibility, failure to go
and failure to progress satisfactorily in training.  The specific reasons
for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 16 September 1980, the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for writing bad checks in August and September 1980.

      b.    On 16 January 1981, the applicant received notification  from
the First National Bank of Arizona, stating the number of checks that  he
had not paid in full and that his account had been placed on hold.

      c.    On 20 January 1981, the applicant was notified  by  the  Fort
Bliss Exchange that three checks he wrote were dishonored.

      d.    On 22 January 1981,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  Mac’s
Signature Loans that he had not paid his account in full.

      e.    On 22 February  1981,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  the
Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette of a dishonored check.

      f.    On 3 February, the  applicant  received  an  Article  15  for
insufficient funds in his checking account.

      g.    On 6 February 1981, the applicant received a LOR for  failing
to meet his financial obligations and responsibilities and failing to  go
to a scheduled dental appointment.

      h.    On 13 February 1981, the applicant received a LOR for failing
to meet his financial obligations and responsibilities.

      i.    On 20 February  1981,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  the
58 CSS/DPT that he was not progressing satisfactorily in  his  On-The-Job
Training.

The commander advised applicant that military counsel had  been  obtained
to assist him; present his case to an administrative discharge board;  be
represented by legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his
own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive the
above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 3 March 1981, the applicant after consulting with counsel  waived  his
right to submit a statement and administrative discharge board.

On 11 March 1981, a legal review was conducted in which the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant be separated from the Air  Force  with
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 24 March 1981, the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge with no
probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 3 April 1981, in the grade  of  airman  first
class  with  an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge,   in
accordance with AFM  39-12  (Separation  for  Unsuitability,  Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good  of  the  Service  and
Procedures  for  the  Rehabilitation  Program  (unsuitable  –   financial
irresponsibility - board waiver).  He served one year, three  months  and
six days of active service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects he did not  receive  any  awards  or
decorations during his period of enlistment.  Item 11, Primary  Specialty
Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty reflect the applicant Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 55110 -  Pavements  Maintenance  Helper,  one
year and one month.

On 3 August 1981, the applicant submitted a  request  to  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting to  have  his  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable and  to  change  his
reenlistment code (RE).  The AFDRB denied the applicant’s request.

On 2 May 2006,  a  DD  Form  215  was  issued  adding  the  AFTR  to  the
applicant’s DD Form 214.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the  applicant’s  requested  relief  be  denied.
AFPC/DPPRS states the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  processing  of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in
the applicant’s file, they believe his discharge was consistent with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulations  of
that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts to  warrant
an upgrade of his discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAC recommends the applicant’s request for correction  of  Item
11 on his DD Form 214 be denied.  AFPC/DPPAC states a thorough review  of
the applicant’s personnel records and the Air Force Regulation (AFR)  39-
1, Airman Classification Regulation (Enlisted  Personnel),  1 June  1977,
reveals the applicant’s primary specialty number and title at the time of
his  separation  as  55110,  Pavements  Maintenance  Helper.   AFPC/DPPAC
further states although the applicant’s APR  for  the  period  ending  27
December  1980  reflects  his  title  as  Unit,  Bomb/Gun  Range  Scoring
Specialist, the purpose of the entry on this DD Form 214 is to record the
official specialty title authorized by the guiding regulation, AFR 39-1.

AFPC/DPPAC complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the AFTR be  granted
and his request for the remaining awards be  denied.   AFPC/DPPPR  states
the applicant is entitled  to  the  AFTR  for  his  completion  of  basic
training in February 1980.  The applicant served less than two  years  of
active duty service; and therefore is not eligible for  the  AFGCM.   The
applicant’s military records do not reflect any  foreign  service  during
his active duty period.  Awards received as a civilian employee  can  not
be annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  The CWC is  not  issued  by
the Air Force.  The applicant should contact the United States  Army  for
consideration of the CWC.

AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states it  would  not
cost the Department of Air  Force  to  approve  the  action(s)  requested
regarding the discharge and the accuracy of the job title on  the  Airman
Performance Evaluation and DD Form 214.  The Department of the Air  Force
would acknowledge the evidence submitted and which demonstrates  civilian
service to Air Force communities, in such a way that Airmen benefited far
more from services provided than he did in terms of any  monetary  reward
received from the contracting agency.  The Department of  the  Air  Force
would be showing leniency and mercy by approving the request
based on the evidence of civilian service to the US Air force at overseas
installations in both times of peace and war (Exhibit G).

___________________________________________________________________

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 an  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record,  we  are  not  persuaded  to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  The applicant was discharged for  unsuitability  based  on  his
financial irresponsibility.  Based on the documentation in the  applicant's
records,  it  appears  that  the  processing  of  the  discharge  and   the
characterization of the discharge  were  appropriate  and  accomplished  in
accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as  the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his  burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an injustice.

4.  In regard to the applicant’s contention regarding the  AFSC  listed  in
Item 11 on his DD Form 214.  Based on the documentation in the  applicant's
records, it appears his DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, Item 11 – Primary Specialty Number Title  and  Years  and
Months in Specialty is correct.  The DD  Form  214  provides  the  official
specialty title authorized by governing regulations  at  the  time  of  the
servicemembers separation.

5.  The applicant is requesting award of the AFGCM, NDSM, KCM, AFSM,  AFTR,
UNM, NATO-Y, and the CWC.  The CWC is not an award that is  issued  by  the
Air Force.  The applicant was advised to contact the  Army  regarding  that
medal.  A review of the applicant’s records reflected  his  entitlement  to
the AFTR for completing basic training.   However,  the  applicant  is  not
entitled for award of the AFGCM due to  serving  less  than  two  years  of
active duty service.  There was no documentation found in  the  applicant’s
official military records indicating he served overseas during  his  active
duty period.   In  addition,  awards  received  as  a  civilian  cannot  be
annotated on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we find
no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

6.  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-
03437 in Executive Session on 14 September 2006 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Nov 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, undated.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Jan 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 06, w/atchs.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair