RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00299
      INDEX CODE:  110.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  4 JUNE 2006

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believed that after a period of time  his  type  of  discharge  could  be
upgraded normally and naturally.

He submitted no supporting documents.  The applicant’s  complete  submission
is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 January 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  at  the
age of 19.  Following is a resume of his Airman Performance Reports (APRs):

      Closeout Date               Overall Rating

      18 February 1973       8
       8 August 1973         8
       8 August 1974         7
       7 August 1975         8
       7 August 1976         8
       7 August 1977         8
      15 August 1978         8
      31 March 1979          7
      18 November 1979       8
      18 November 1980       9
      18 November 1981       7
       2 August 1982         9
       4 July 1983           7
      27 March 1984          6
On 4 March 1983, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for  driving  while
intoxicated.  He received a Letter of Counseling  (LOC)  on  both  26  April
1983 & 10 May 1983 for financial irresponsibility.   On  13  June  1983,  he
failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty.   For
this offense, he received an LOC.

On 2 August 1983 he failed to  go  to  a  mandatory  alcohol  rehabilitation
appointment.  For this offense he received an LOR.   On  8  August  1983  he
received an LOC for failure to go and  financial  irresponsibility.   On  13
December 1983 and 14 February 1984, he failed to demonstrate  the  necessary
abilities and qualities of an NCO.  He received  LOCs  for  both  incidents.
On 11 March 1984, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty.


On 28 March 1984,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending his separation from the Air Force under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10 for unsatisfactory performance.  The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt
of the notification and, after consulting military legal counsel,  requested
a hearing before an administrative discharge board.

On  17  May  1984,  a  Board  of  Officers  was  convened  to  consider  the
commander’s recommendation.  The applicant was present and read  an  unsworn
statement.   The   board   recommended   he   be   discharged   because   of
unsatisfactory  duty  performance   with   a   general   discharge   without
rehabilitation.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 4 June  1984,  the  Staff
Judge Advocate found the file was legally sufficient  and  agreed  with  the
recommended discharge.  The discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended
separation  and  directed  the  applicant  be  discharged  for  the  reasons
recommended  by  his  commander,  without  the  offer   of   probation   and
rehabilitation.

On 6 June 1984, the  applicant  was  separated  from  military  service  and
discharged Under Honorable Conditions (General).  He had served 12 years,  5
months and 1 year on active duty.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify an arrest record pertaining  to  the  applicant  on  the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  indicates  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  Additionally, DPPPRS stated the applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge
processing, or provide any facts warranting a change  to  his  character  of
service.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation and a request for  post-service  activity
information was forwarded to the applicant on 24 February 2006 and 22  March
2006, respectively.  The applicant’s only response was to  submit  five  (5)
character reference form letters (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 an error or  injustice  warranting  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge.  There is no indication in the available record  the  applicant’s
discharge  was  improper.   It  appears  the  applicant  is  requesting  his
discharge be upgraded based on the clemency consideration  of  a  successful
post-service  adjustment.   Although  the  applicant   has   provided   some
information concerning post-service activities,  we  find  this  information
insufficient to warrant approval  of  the  requested  relief  based  on  the
limited quality and quantity, especially in view of the  fact  that  it  has
been 22 years since his  separation.   Should  he  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good  character  and
reputation, and other evidence of  successful  post-service  rehabilitation,
in particular, evidence showing he has overcome the problem that led to  his
separation, we would be willing to reconsider this case  based  on  the  new
evidence.  We cannot, however,  recommend  approval  based  on  the  current
evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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  BC-2006-00299  in
Executive Session on 8 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Member
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 06.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Feb 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 06 & AFBCMR,
                  dated 22 Mar 06.
      Exhibit E.  Character Reference Letters.




            WAYNE R. GRACIE
            Panel Chair