RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00921
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 SEPTEMBER 2007


__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that after six months he could request to  get  his  discharge
upgraded to honorable.  This is his formal request.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:


Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Aug 81, for a period  of
six years in the grade of airman basic.  His highest grade held was senior
airman.

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

      PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

      27 Sep 82                      8
       1 Jul 83                      9
      21 Feb 84                      9
      27 Jun 84                      7

On 28 Jun 84, applicant’s squadron section commander notified him that  he
was recommending he be discharged from the Air  Force  for  a  pattern  of
misconduct.  He recommended the  applicant  receive  a  general  discharge
based on the following reasons:  (1) On 3 May 84, applicant was  counseled
for failing to report for duty at the prescribed time; (2) On  4  Jun  84,
applicant received a Letter of Reprimand based on a urine specimen testing
positive for THC (marijuana); (3) On  22  May  84,  applicant  received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC)  for  making  unsatisfactory  progress  on  the
Weight Management Program; (4) On 6 Jun 84, applicant received an LOC  for
failure to report for duty at the prescribed  time;  (5)  On  11  Jun  84,
applicant was counseled for writing a worthless check to a nonappropriated
fund on base.

On 13 Jul 84,  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.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the
separation and directed an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 6 Aug 84, applicant was discharged in the grade of senior airman, under
the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  by  reason  of  misconduct-discreditable
involvement with military or civilian authorities,  and  given  a  general
discharge.  He served on active duty for 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request  on  9  May  06,  the  Federal  Bureau  of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 12 May 06, that, on
the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate  an  arrest  record
(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.

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 AFBCMR’s statute of limitations expired  and  he
offers no meaningful explanation for why he waited nearly 22 years for his
discharge to be reviewed.  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.   Indeed,  he  alleges  no  errors  or
injustice in his case and requests upgrading his service  characterization
because he  heard  a  frequently  circulated  rumor  that  discharges  are
automatically upgraded after six months.  This is, of course, untrue.

It is a well established  principle  of  military  personnel  law  that  a
service member’s discharge characterization is  based  “solely”  upon  his
conduct during the enlistment from which he is separated and must  reflect
the nature of his military service.  The applicant received more  than  an
adequate  opportunity  to  correct  his  behavior  before  his   commander
initiated the action to administratively separate him from the Air  Force.
The evidence contained in the applicant’s records establishes valid  legal
foundations for both his discharge basis and service characterization.  To
put it briefly,  there  is  no  error  or  injustice  in  this  case;  the
applicant’s discharge characterization was appropriate.

The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

__________________________________________________________________

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 (Exhibit F).

On 1 Jun 06, the AFBCMR offered the applicant an  opportunity  to  provide
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.

Applicant responded with a personal letter outlining his Air Force  career
and how his motivation and confidence were damaged due  to  his  different
assignments.  During these times his attitude greatly diminished  as  well
as his discipline to meet conduct suitable for an E-3.  In  the  long  and
short of his career he was in a downward spiral due to  the  many  hurdles
that were placed in front of him.  He always wanted to do a great job  for
his country and even after all of this history would do it again, but in a
different way.  He was immature and needed discipline on a regular  basis,
and thought that it would always be there for him.

He was given  the  choice  to  stay  in  the  Air  Force  and  go  through
counseling, lose rank, pay fines etc., or, to get out.   He  decided  that
his current situation would not change, so he opted for the general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.

The training he received from the Air Force was top notch and  helped  him
secure a job with a local communication tower company.  Since 1985, he has
worked his way from climber, to  lead,  to  supervisor,  and  now  is  the
Director of Operations.  He has been with his company for 21 years.

He has been a productive citizen since he got out,  helping  and  teaching
people of all levels of society.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

__________________________________________________________________

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 review  of  the  available
records, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in  compliance  with  the
governing regulation  and  we  find  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no  evidence  of
error in this case and after  reviewing  the  documentation  submitted  in
support of applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered  from  an
injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we  find
no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 Docket  Number      BC-2006-
00921 in Executive Session on 13 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket  Number   BC-2006-
00921 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 14 Apr 06.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 06.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Jun 06.




                                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair