RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00058
            INDEX CODE:  110.02, 126.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  discharge  be  either  upgraded  or  annulled,  his   nonjudicial
punishment be removed from his record, he be restored to the grade  of
staff sergeant, and his final Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  be
removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned a supervisor with whom he shared personal  differences
and conflicts of interest.

He was subsequently transferred from TA to Phase where he  thought  he
would get a new start.  However,  since  he  was  labeled  a  “Problem
Child” in TA, he found this label followed him to his new position.

He has been dealt  a  serious  injustice  by  being  discharged  under
honorable conditions for misconduct.   He  feels  being  involuntarily
discharged from the Air Force has been an  injustice  to  his  family,
himself and the Air Force.  In what he calls a breakdown of the spirit
of the Administrative Discharge Board (ADB), he  was  recommended  for
Probation &  Rehabilitation  (P&R)  by  all  Board  members,  yet  his
commander did not consider him for P&R.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and a copy of a letter he sent to his Representative in  the
Congress.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in  the  Air  Force  on  11  March  1998.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant in 2002.   On  3
June 2003, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the  time
prescribed and received an LOR.  On 8 July 2003, he failed to abide by
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2903 regarding his personal appearance.
 After being instructed to get his haircut, he failed to do  so.   For
this failure he received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC).   On
28 July 2003, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his  appointed
place of duty and received an LOR dated 5 August 2003.  A UIF was also
established at this time.  On 5 January 2004, he failed to go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this failure,  he
received an Article 15.   His  punishment  consisted  of  a  suspended
reduction in grade to senior airman and 45 days of extra  duty.   This
action was filed in his UIF.   On  10  January  2004,  he  received  a
referral EPR for the period 20 April 2003 through 10 January 2004.  He
acknowledged receipt of the referral EPR and submitted a  response  on
20 January 2004.  On 31 March 2004,  he  was  found  derelict  in  the
performance of his duties  in  that  he  willfully  failed  to  follow
technical data  relating  to  the  maintenance  of  the  F-16  he  was
servicing.  For this failure,  his  previously  suspended  nonjudicial
punishment was vacated and he was reduced in grade  to  senior  airman
with a date of rank (DOR) of 21 January 2004.  On  13  July  2004,  an
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) was convened.  The Board found he
had  engaged  in  a  pattern  of  misconduct  and  recommended  he  be
discharged with an Under  Honorable  Conditions  (General)  discharge.
Further, the Board recommended conditionally suspending the  discharge
and he be granted P&R.  The  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the
findings legally sufficient on 11 August 2004.  Also on that date, his
commander recommended he be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  a
Pattern  of  Misconduct,  Conduct  Prejudicial  to  Good   Order   and
Discipline.  The commander directed he  be  separated  with  an  Under
Honorable Conditions (General) discharge without the  opportunity  for
P&R.  Consequently, he was discharged effective 13 August  2004  after
having served for six years, five months,  and  three  days.   He  was
serving in the grade of senior airman at the time of his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFLSA/JAJM addresses the nonjudicial punishment  and  vacation  action
taken against the applicant and recommends denial.  JAJM  contends  he
has provided no evidence of clear error or injustice  related  to  the
nonjudicial  punishment  and  vacation  action  other  than  a  letter
detailing his difficulties with a supervisor prior to  his  discharge.
JAJM notes nonjudicial punishment is permitted by Article 15,  Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and governed by the Manual for Courts-
Martial  and  AFI  51-202,  Nonjudicial  Punishment.   His   commander
determined Article 15 action was warranted and  the  applicant  waived
his  right  to  be  tried  by  court-martial   thereby   placing   the
determination of guilt or innocence in the  hands  of  his  commander.
The commander found him guilty and imposed punishment of  a  suspended
reduction in grade.  In this case, the suspension  was  an  authorized
tool  for  the  commander  to  use.   He  complied  with  the   notice
requirements to the applicant.  The applicant’s  dereliction  of  duty
constituted a UCMJ offense within the time period of  the  suspension,
thereby permitting the vacation of the earlier suspension.   There  is
no evidence of impropriety in the imposition of either the nonjudicial
punishment or the vacation of the suspension.

JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP addresses his request for removal of his 10  January  2004
referral EPR.  DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP notes he is no longer
on active duty and cannot file an appeal under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  However,
after review of the EPR DPPPEP noticed  an  error  with  the  referral
comment in section V, line 13.  The comment “failed to meet Air  Force
standards in certain areas” is considered a vague referral comment and
is prohibited  in  accordance  with  (IAW)  AFI  36-2406.   The  rater
provides specific information as to why the report was referred in the
memorandum dated 10 January  2004.   The  applicant  “failed  to  meet
established standards in dress and appearance, received  an  LOR,  and
failed to respect authority by failing  to  arrive  for  duty  at  the
prescribed  time  and  received  a  Letter  of   Reprimand.”    DPPPEP
recommends the AFBCMR change the referral comment in section V of  the
contested EPR to include the applicant’s receipt of an LOR for failing
to respect authority by failing to arrive for duty at  the  prescribed
time and receipt of an LOR for failing to meet  dress  and  appearance
standards.  In addition to the above error, DPPPEP noticed an error in
section VI of the contested report.  The additional  rater  failed  to
document the mandatory comment as directed  by  AFI  36-2406.   DPPPEP
recommends the AFBCMR changed section  VI,  line  6,  to  reflect  the
mandatory statement as directed by paragraph 3.9.7.2.

DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the legal office’s documentation on file in
the master personnel records; the discharge was  consistent  with  the
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
action was within the discretionary power of the discharge  authority.
The applicant failed to provide any facts warranting a change  to  his
discharge.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
24 March 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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
including  his  contention  he  was  labeled  a  problem   child   and
subsequently involuntarily discharged;  however,  we  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  We found no evidence that would persuade us to support his
request to upgrade his discharge, remove  his  nonjudicial  punishment
and a referral OPR, or restore him to the  grade  of  staff  sergeant.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The above notwithstanding, we noted AFPC/DPPPEP’s contention  that
a referral comment in the subject  EPR,  “Failed  to  meet  Air  Force
standards in certain areas” as being prohibited in accordance with Air
Force Instruction  (AFI)  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluation Reports, due to the  comment  being  vague.   While  DPPPEP
contends the EPR should  be  corrected  to  reflect  a  more  accurate
Referral statement, the Board acknowledges its responsibility  of  not
doing harm to the applicant and therefore, recommends that the records
be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected  to  show  that  the  statement  in
Section V, Rater's Comments,  Line  13,  "Failed  to  meet  Air  Force
Standards in certain areas;" in the Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)
for period ending 10 January 2004 be removed from his records.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00058 in Executive Session on 26 April 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 26 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 10 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC

[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary



AFBCMR BC-2006-00058




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the statement
in Section V, Rater's Comments, Line 13, "Failed to meet Air Force
Standards in certain areas;" in the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)
for period ending 10 January 2004 be removed from his records.





     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency