RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00397
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 August 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His conduct has been proper since his discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits two copies of his DD  Form
214.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 May 1985 for a period
of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman on  7  November
1985 and airman first class on 7  September  1986.   He  received  two
airman performance reports (APRs) closing 6 May 1986 and 6  May  1987,
in which the evaluations were “8,” and “8.”

On 1 October 1987, the applicant’s commander notified him that he  was
recommending discharge from  the  Air  Force  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The commander  was  recommending  he  receive  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge based on the  following:   He
received six Letters of Counseling (27 January 1987, for  unacceptable
work habits in funds security;  12  February  1987,  for  not  keeping
records for Protestant and Catholic Chaplain Funds for the  months  of
November and December 1986; 20 April 1987, for failure to perform  and
be available for Easter Sunday services;  15  May  1987  for  relaying
false information to a chaplain; 3 August 1987, for dereliction in the
performance of his duties at East  Chapel;  and  4  August  1987,  for
failure to report back to duty section after a scheduled appointment);
five Memos for Record (10 February 1987, for failing to accomplish his
duties; 8 May 1987, for dereliction of his duties related to  chaplain
funds, chapel cleanup and purchase orders; 26 May 1987, for failure to
record the Project Reserve in the Fund Council Minutes; 4  June  1987,
for poor duty performance; and  21  September  1987,  for  failure  to
secure the yen offerings  from  the  weekend  services  and  put  away
ecclesiastical equipment from the Episcopal services); four Letters of
Reprimand (3 March 1987, for failure to adhere to criteria outlined in
AFR 35-11, Chapter 2, Sec E, para 2-23(e), for individuals enrolled in
Phase I of the Weight Management Program; 15 June 1987, for failure to
secure and deposit money belonging to the  Jewish  Chaplain  Fund  and
failure to maintain  balanced  bookkeeping;  23  September  1987,  for
failure to secure chapel offerings; and 29 September 1987, for failure
to maintain sufficient funds in his checking account).  He received an
Article 15 dated 7 August 1987, for dereliction of  duty.   Punishment
consisted of suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic  and  28
days of correctional  custody.   On  23 September  1987,  he  received
Vacation of Article 15 for failure to maintain sufficient funds in his
checking account.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel submitted statements  in  his  own
behalf.  The base legal office found it legally sufficient to  support
separation and recommended an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge  without  probation  or   rehabilitation.    The   discharge
authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without probation or rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air  Force  on  19  October  1987
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(misconduct - pattern of  minor  disciplinary  infractions),  with  an
under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   He  had  served  2
years, 5 months and 13 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that based on  the  documentation  on  file  in  the
master personnel  records;  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 March 2006, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a  change  to  his
character of service.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought  in
this application.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   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.   Based  on  the  evidence  of
record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Applicant  has
not   provided   information   of    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments for us to conclude that he has overcome the behavioral
traits  which  caused  the  discharge.    Should   applicant   provide
statements from  community  leaders  and  acquaintances  attesting  to
applicant's good  character  and  reputation  and  other  evidence  of
successful post-service rehabilitation,  this  Board  will  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 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-
2006-00397 in Executive Session on 19 April 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair