RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2006-
00673
                                             INDEX  CODE:   100.00,
110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 SEPTEMBER 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed  so  that  he  is
eligible to rejoin the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not the person he was 18 years ago.  He really did  not  know
what it was to be in the military, and to be a team player.   Since
his discharge he  has  matured,  and  understands  and  appreciates
responsibility.  He has a wife and two young  sons.   He  completed
his AS Degree in computer  programming,  and  is  also  considering
expanding his education, which is one reason he wants  to  reenlist
in the military.  He now knows the meaning of  discipline,  and  is
willing to work on it in the military.  After 9/11, he  decided  to
join the military and do whatever it takes to help this country.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided several  character
references, a copy  of  his  AS  Degree  Certificate,  and  various
military personnel documents.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13  Aug  86,  for  a
period of six years in the grade  of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman first class.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile follows:



      PERIOD ENDING                            OVERALL EVALUATION

        20   Apr   88                                             3
(Referral)
      12 Aug 87                                          8

On 21 Apr 88, applicant’s squadron commander notified him that  she
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for conditions
that interfere with military service,  specifically  character  and
behavior disorders, and for minor  disciplinary  infractions.   She
recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.  The reasons
for the commander’s actions were:

      a.  On 24 Aug  87,  applicant  received  an  Article  15  for
wearing an unclean and wrinkled uniform.  Punishment imposed was  a
suspended reduction in grade to airman, and 30 days of correctional
custody.  An Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established.

      b.  On 13 Apr 88, applicant received a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR), with a UIF  entry,  for  being  disrespectful  to  a  senior
officer.

      c.  On 12 Apr 88,  applicant  was  evaluated  by  the  Mental
Health  Unit,  and  it  was  determined  that  he   suffered   from
occupational problem, mixed  personality  disorder  with  immature,
histrionic, and narcissistic features, and back pain with no  known
etiology.  The evaluation revealed that  there  was  a  personality
disorder that significantly interfered with applicant’s ability  to
perform his  duties.   Attempts  at  therapy  did  not  prove  very
helpful.

      d.  On  30  Jan  88,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to make a scheduled doctor’s appointment.

      e.  On 10 Dec 87, he received an LOR for failure to report to
work on time.

      f.   On  3  Dec  87,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to report to work on time.

      g.  On  18  Aug  87,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for reporting to duty wearing an unserviceable uniform.

      h.  On 12 Aug 87,  applicant  was  evaluated  by  the  Mental
Health Services and diagnosed as having occupational  problem  with
histrionic features.  The evaluation revealed that no  signs  of  a
significant thought or  mood  disorder  exists,  applicant  has  an
average intelligence and is self centered.  Applicant  appeared  to
have difficulty maintaining social relationships and at  times  may
exaggerate to influence others to like him.

      i.   On  6  Aug  87,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to meet his financial obligations.

      j.  On  23  Jul  87,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to inventory his tool  box  correctly  which
could have resulted in a dangerous situation.

      k.  On 21 Jul 87, he received a LOR for failure to return his
chemical warfare gear.

      l.  On  15  Jul  87,  he  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to report a  missing  apex-tip  which  could
have caused a loss of time and resources.

On 2 May 88, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of
discharge and, after consulting with counsel, submitted  statements
in his own behalf.

The Staff Judge Advocate  reviewed  the  case  file  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support discharge and  recommended  an  under
honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority  approved  the  separation
and directed an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 26 May 88, in the grade of airman first
class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for Conditions that
Interfere  with  Military  Service,  specifically   character   and
behavior disorders, and  for  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions  and
received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He was
issued an RE Code of 2B [separated with a general  discharge].   He
served on active duty for a period of 1  year,  9  months,  and  14
days.

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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states,  in
part, 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.

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices   that   occurred   in   the    discharge    processing.
Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting  a  change
to his character of service or reenlistment eligibility code.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.


AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.   They  stated
no error or injustice has been established warranting relief.

The application was not timely filed and should be denied  on  that
basis alone.  The applicant possessed all the information necessary
to pursue his claim long before the statute of limitations  expired
and he offers no meaningful explanation for why he waited 18  years
for his discharge to be reviewed other than he “was  unaware  of  a
time limit and didn’t know  it  could  be  done.”   JA  is  of  the
opinion, that the interests of  justice  would  not  be  served  by
excusing the applicant’s failure to submit this  issue  within  the
required time period; such waivers should be limited to  situations
to preclude an actual injustice.

Timeliness aside, the applicant’s claim also fails on  the  merits.
To obtain relief, the applicant must show by a preponderance of the
evidence there exists some error or injustice warranting corrective
action by the Board.  The United States Claims Court has repeatedly
defined an injustice in the context of BCMR cases as “treatment  by
military authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice.”   The
applicant  provides  no  persuasive  evidence  that  his  discharge
characterization did not comply with the requirements contained  in
the  version  of  AFR  39-10  in  effect  at  the   time   he   was
administratively separated.  His records  illustrate  that  in  the
relatively short time he served on active duty he failed to correct
his behavior despite being repeatedly  counseled,  reprimanded  and
nonjudicially  punished  under  Article  15   for   his   recurrent
misconduct.  Although it is commendable that the applicant has  the
support of many member of his community today, this  is  immaterial
to the characterization of his substandard  behavior  and  attitude
while he served on active duty in the Air Force.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 Apr 06, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

On 25 Apr 06, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review/comment.  At the same time the  applicant  was
invited to provide  additional  information  concerning  his  post-
service activities since leaving the service.  As of this date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit G).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing regulations in  effect  at  the
time and we find no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  applicant’s
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances,  the  individual  should  be  allowed  to  reenlist.
Applicant’s  RE  code  2B  accurately  reflects   his   involuntary
separation with a general discharge.  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.  In addition, in view of
the contents of  the  FBI  Report  of  Investigation,  we  are  not
persuaded that the characterization of  the  applicant’s  discharge
warrants  an  upgrade  to  honorable  on  the  basis  of  clemency.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record,  we  find  no
basis upon which to favorably consider his request.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2006-
00673 in Executive Session on 26 May 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  HQ AFPC/JA, dated 31 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Apr 06.




                                   MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                   Panel Chair