RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00923
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 September 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When the event for which he was  court-martialed  occurred,  discharge
action had already been initiated against him.  He finds it impossible
to believe that out of the approximately 50 people who  lived  in  the
dorm, only his fingerprints were found on the microwave.  He has  been
receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) since
2003 and is a member of the American Legion.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 Apr 97.   On  16 Sep
98, he was notified by his commander that he was  recommending  he  be
separated from the Air Force under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for conduct prejudicial  to  good
order and discipline.  The commander indicated the following bases for
the recommendation:

      (1)   Applicant was tried by Special Court-Martial for burning a
telephone  and  microwave  oven  (property  of   the   United   States
government), for being derelict in the performance of  his  duties  in
that he willfully consumed alcohol while under the age of 21, and  for
wrongfully possessing a  military  identification  card  (DD  Form  2)
issued in the  name  of  another  individual.   He  was  sentenced  to
confinement for five months and forfeiture of $615.00  per  month  for
five months.

      (2)   He received four Letters of Counseling  (LOCs)  for  using
provoking language and gestures to communicate a threat to two of  his
co-workers, failing to report to his place of duty on  two  occasions,
and dereliction of duty.

       (3)    He  received  four  Letters  of  Reprimand  (LORs)   for
dereliction of duty on two occasions and two instances of  failing  to
report to his place of duty.

      (4)   He received an Article 15 for failure  to  report  to  his
place of duty, with punishment  consisting  of  21  days  correctional
custody, a suspended reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  and
forfeiture of $100.00 pay.

Applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the   notification   and   after
consulting with military counsel, waived his right to submit  oral  or
written matters in his own behalf.  The discharge  authority  approved
the separation and directed his  discharge.   On  2  Oct  98,  he  was
separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.   He
served 1 year, 5 months and 17 days on active duty.

On 8 Jul 03, the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states,  in  part
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion  of
the discharge authority.  Further, the applicant did  not  submit  any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing to warrant a change to  the  characterization  of
his service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied  as  untimely.   However,
should the Board waive the failure to timely file, the request  should
be denied due to a lack of merit.  While the applicant contends it  is
impossible that his was the only fingerprints found on the  microwave,
he could have chosen to raise this issue during his court-martial  but
instead chose to plead guilty to the charges.  AFPC/JA notes that when
he pled guilty to the charges he had to  undergo  an  inquiry  by  the
military judge, under oath, in which he confessed to the charges.   In
view of this, for him to now claim that he did not commit the offenses
is tantamount to an admission of perjury.  Additionally, membership in
the American Legion and receipt of DVA benefits are of no  consequence
to characterizing his 17 months of service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

On 5 May 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.  After careful  consideration  of
the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge  appears  to  be  in
compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect  at  the
time and we find no evidence to indicate that he was denied any rights
to which entitled, or that his  separation  from  the  Air  Force  was
inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s personal statement  submitted  in
support of his appeal, we do not believe that he has suffered from  an
injustice.  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-
2006-00923 in Executive Session on 27 June 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.




                             CHARLES E. BENNETT
                             Panel Chair