RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03771
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 JUN 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and immature at the time and made some minor  mistakes
in his military service.  He  has  observed  other  veterans  whose
conduct  was  far  worse  than  his,  who  received  an   honorable
discharge, and does not believe this to be  equitable.   Since  his
discharge, he has attended college, was a state  trooper  for  over
11 years, until he was disability retired.  He has become a  strong
advocate of special needs children, a volunteer referee and  coach,
and a Cub Scout leader.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  24  Jul  87  for  a
period four years.  He was promoted to the grade  of  airman  first
class with an effective date and date of rank of 24 Nov 88.

On 14 Aug  89,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge   action   against   the   applicant   for    misconduct,
specifically, minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for  the
proposed action were:

      On 10 Jun 88, applicant reported to work without  shaving  in
violation  of  AFR  35-10,  for  which  he  received  a  record  of
counseling.

      On 17 Jul 88, he was found to have unauthorized items on  his
post in direct violation of Post Operating Instructions, for  which
he received a record of counseling.

      On 30 Nov 88, applicant made an unauthorized  response  to  a
report of an intruder in a dormitory.  While in  the  dormitory  he
made false statements and  caused  undue  panic  among  the  female
residents, for which he receive a record of counseling.

      On 14 Dec 88,  he  reported  for  M870  shotgun  training  in
uniform but unshaven, for which he received a record of counseling.

      Prior to 1 Dec 88, applicant used poor judgment resulting  in
inappropriate off-duty behavior with a dependent spouse, for  which
he received a letter of admonishment.

      On 7 Jan 89, applicant was found asleep  in  his  patrol  car
during duty hours, for which he received a memo for record.

      On 8 Jan 89, he was observed  in  the  Law  Enforcement  Desk
lobby to have the appearance of  being  asleep  during  duty  hours
while carrying  a  weapon,  for  which  he  received  a  letter  of
counseling.

      On 13 Jan 89, applicant brought discredit  upon  himself  and
his squadron by using verbal, abusive, and obscene language to  the
transportation dispatcher.  He was given  a  letter  of  reprimand,
which he refused to acknowledge receipt.

      On 17 Jan 89, he approached his supervisor to give him a list
of statements to put in his airman  performance  report.   On  this
occasion  his   bearing/behavior   and   actions   were   bordering
insubordination.  He was given an informal letter.

      On 22 Jan 89, applicant showed an insubordinate attitude when
dealing with his flight chief.  For this  offense,  he  received  a
memo for record.

      On 29 Mar 89, he misused the  chain  of  command  causing  an
embarrassment to his immediate supervisor, for which he received  a
memo for record.

      On or about (o/a) 4 Apr 89, he was derelict in his duties  by
failing to perform building security checks.  For this offense,  he
received an Article 15 punishment.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman, forfeiture of $200 pay per month  for
two months, 60 days of extra duty and 60  days  restricted  to  the
base limits.  Additionally, he misused his chain of command causing
embarrassment to his immediate supervisor by  requesting  a  flight
change.  For this incident, he received a record of counseling.

      O/a 13 Jul 89, applicant was disorderly.  For this offense he
received  Article  15  punishment.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman basic.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.   On  17  Aug  89,  after  consulting  with  counsel,
applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  On  18  Aug  89,
the Wing Staff Judge Advocate concurred with the  findings  showing
that the applicant’s misconduct resulted in two  (2)  Article  15s,
one (1) letter of reprimand, one (1) letter of counseling, five (5)
records of counseling, one (1) letter of admonishment, and four (4)
memos for record.  He found that his misconduct  clearly  indicated
his inability or  maybe  more  importantly,  his  unwillingness  to
conform to the standards expected of members of the  United  States
Air Force.  He cited errors and irregularities in  the  applicant’s
case file; however, did not find that  the  errors  prejudiced  the
applicant’s rights.  He found the case to be legally sufficient  to
support discharge without probation and rehabilitation  (P&R),  and
that the discharge should  not  be  conditionally  suspended.   The
discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge  and  stated  that  probation  and  rehabilitation   were
considered, but not appropriate.

On 5 Sep 89, applicant  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct – pattern of minor  disciplinary
infractions, with service characterized as general, under honorable
conditions.  He was credited with 2 year, 1 month, and 12  days  of
active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 31 Jan 06, that, on  the  basis  of  data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

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 her character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant’s response to the  evaluation,  he  explained  the
circumstances surrounding the misconduct which led to  his  Article
15  actions   and   subsequent   discharge,   and   some   of   his
accomplishments since leaving the service.

Applicant’s complete response is 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.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the  available
evidence of record, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.

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.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of  service,
the events which precipitated the discharge and available  evidence
related  to  post-service  activities  and   accomplishments.    On
balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2005-03771 in Executive Session  on  2  March  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated  22 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit F.  FBI Report, dated 31 Jan 06.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair