RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00853
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 September 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he thought it was the best  way  to  save
his marriage.  He was under the impression that  the  discharge  would
change in six months.   He  asked  for  early  separation  for  family
reasons.

Applicant did not submit any documentation in support of the appeal.

Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug  85.   On  12 Apr
90, he was notified by his commander that he was  recommending  he  be
discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The
basis for the  recommendation  was  (1)  he  received  an  Article  15
(between 1 Aug 89 and on or about 1 Nov 90, he stole  mugs,  coasters,
wine glasses, a flying helmet and a glass beer stein, the property  of
the United States government  (valued  of  less  than  $100.00).   The
punishment consisted of forfeiture of $483.00 (in  excess  of  $241.00
suspended until 21 Sep 90), for two months, and 45  days  extra  duty;
and (2) a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for on 4 Feb 89, while on duty, he
referred to members of the black race  assigned  to  the  36  Security
Police Squadron as “niggers and moulley”  with  additional  slanderous
statements of  a  racial  nature.   He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and waived his right to a hearing before  an
administrative discharge board, his right to military counsel and  his
right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The base  legal  office
reviewed the case and found it  legally  sufficient,  and  recommended
separation with an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge
without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge   authority
approved the separation and directed his separation.  He was separated
from the Air Force on 2 May 90.  He served 4 years, 8  months  and  24
days on active duty.

On 24 Aug 90, the applicant submitted an application to the Air  Force
Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his   under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable  discharge.
On 29 Nov 90, the AFDRB considered all  the  evidence  of  record  and
concluded that the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  and  was  within
the discretion of the  discharge  authority  and  that  applicant  was
provided full administrative due process.  The board further concluded
that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge
(Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the  discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors in his discharge processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  The applicant’s present submissions reveal
nothing that the commander failed  to  consider  and  fall  hopelessly
short of identifying any error or injustice in this  case.   The  only
reasonable   conclusion   is   that    the    applicant’s    discharge
characterization was legally justified and demonstrably appropriate.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We  note,
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices tht 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2006-00853 in Executive Session on 25 May 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 13 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Apr 06.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair