RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00454
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 AUG 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “unsatisfactory performance”
be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reason for separation should be changed because it’s been  over
20 years since his discharge.  At the time of his discharge, he was
20 years old, from Bronx, NY, and from a single  parent  home.   He
had no knowledge of responsibility and the importance  of  managing
bills.  He had gotten married to someone who was seven years  older
and was carefree with his credit.   Eventually,  this  led  to  his
punishment and subsequent discharge.

He is now a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG), been deployed
overseas in Iraq and continues to work as a model  citizen  in  law
enforcement and the civilian sector.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted copies  of  DD  Forms
214, Certificate of Release and Discharge from Active  Duty,  dated
10 May 88 and 4 Dec 05, and letters  of  support  and  commendation
from members of the ARNG.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  31 Mar 86  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  Applicant
was promoted to the grade of airman with an effective date and date
of rank of 30 Sep 86.  On or about 26 Nov 87, applicant received an
Article 15 for presenting a  check  to  the  Class  VI  store  with
insufficient  funds  in  his  checking  account.   His   punishment
consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman  basic  until
26 Jul 88 and 30 days of correctional custody.  On 10  May  88,  he
was honorably discharged under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  by
reason of “Unsatisfactory Performance,”  in  the  grade  of  airman
(Amn/E-2).  He was credited with 2 years, 1 month, and 10  days  of
active duty service.

From 11 May 88 to  14  Sep  98  he  was  in  civilian  status.   On
15 Sep 98, he enlisted in the New  York  Air  National  Guard.   On
8 Mar 03, he was discharged from the Air National Guard  (ANG)  and
as a Reserve of the Air Force Reserve, with a character of  service
of general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant provided a DD Form 214, reflecting he entered active duty
on 29 Dec 04 in the ARNG.  He was honorably  released  from  active
duty on 4 Dec 05 in  the  grade  of  E-4.   He  was  credited  with
11 months, and 6 days of active duty service  during  this  period.
With 2 years, 4 months,  and  18  days  of  prior  active  service,
including 6 years, 3 months, and 14 days of prior inactive service.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and  indicated  that  there
was  no  documentation  in  applicant’s  master  personnel  records
relating to the reason for  discharge  or  the  discharge  process.
They were unable to determine the propriety of the separation based
on the lack of  documentation  in  the  master  personnel  records.
Additionally, they noted that the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the
discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 19 Apr 06 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 23 May 06, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for comment.   At  that  time,  the  applicant  was  also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the  service  (Exhibit  F).   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.   The  applicant  requests  his  reason  for  separation   of
“unsatisfactory performance” be changed.  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.   The  Board  noted  the
letters submitted in support of applicant's appeal; however,  based
on the available evidence of record, we are not  persuaded  that  a
change in the reason for separation  is  warranted.  Therefore,  we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

4.  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   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-2006-00454 in Executive Session  on  22  June  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 May 06.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair