RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01496
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 NOV 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated on active duty in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
rank of airman first class (E-3).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was not enough justification for his reduction in  grade  and
subsequent discharge.  He was  punished  severely  for  very  minor
infractions.

Written testimony from his accusers are inconsistent with the  copy
of AAC Form 18 they submitted against him; which was the sole basis
of his reduction in grade.  He believes  these  inconsistencies  in
the written testimony are relevant to his discharge  since  it  was
the reduction in grade he suffered from  the  inspection  that  his
commander used  to  justify  his  discharge,  and  feels  this  was
orchestrated by his commander to achieve that end.

When he requested  cross-training  in-lieu  of  discharge,  it  was
denied, despite passing with high scores on the  Language  Aptitude
Battery.

He feels that he has not been given a fair opportunity  to  succeed
in the Air Force, but would  like  the  opportunity  to  serve  his
country in the same manner as other family members.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted  copies  of  previous
disciplinary actions and discharge  correspondence,  including  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty,
dated 1 Feb 06; an  AAC Form 18,  Unaccompanied  Personnel  Housing
(UPH) Monthly Room Inspection Checklist, and written testimony from
room inspectors.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, applicant enlisted in the Regular
Air Force on 25 Feb 04 for a period of four years in the  grade  of
airman first class (E-3).

On 3  Jan  06,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge   action   against   the   applicant   for    misconduct,
specifically, minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for  the
proposed action were:

      On 28 Feb 04, applicant’s dorm room was inspected  and  found
to be completely unacceptable.  For this  offense,  he  received  a
Letter of Reprimand, dated 1 Mar 05.

      On 12 May 05, he was  disrespectful  in  language  towards  a
staff sergeant, for which he received Article 15  punishment.   His
punishment consisted of 30 days of correctional custody.

      On 18 Aug 05, applicant failed to properly maintain his  dorm
room.  For this offense, he received Article  15  punishment.   His
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman (E-
2) through 8 Mar 06, after which time it would be remitted  without
further action, unless sooner vacated, and forfeiture of  $100  pay
per month for two months.

      On 28 Oct 05, he was disrespectful towards a master  sergeant
and failed to maintain his dorm room.  For this offense he received
a  vacation  of  the  suspended  reduction   to   the   nonjudicial
punishment, dated 21 Nov 05.  His punishment consisted of reduction
in grade to airman (E-2), with a new date of rank of 9 Sep 05.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.   On  11  Jan  06,  after  consulting  with  counsel,
applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  On  18  Jan  06,
the squadron  commander  recommended  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation  (P&R).
On 25 Jan 06, the discharge authority  approved  a  general  (under
honorable conditions)  discharge  and  stated  that  probation  and
rehabilitation was not appropriate.

On 1 Feb 06, applicant was discharged under the provisions  of  AFI
36-3208, by reason of misconduct,  with  service  characterized  as
general, under honorable conditions.  He was credited with  1 year,
11 months, and 7 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  Based on  documentation  in  the
file, they found the discharge consistent with the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the
discharge authority.  They also noted applicant did not submit  any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the
discharge processing and  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  a
change to his character of service.

The HQ AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 9 Jun 06 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant  is
requesting reinstatement on active duty  in  the  grade  of  airman
first class; however, after careful consideration of  the  evidence
of record, we found no evidence that the actions  taken  to  effect
his discharge were improper or contrary to the  provisions  of  the
governing instructions in effect at the time, or that  the  actions
taken against the applicant were based on factors  other  than  his
own misconduct.  Therefore, in the absence of  persuasive  evidence
to the contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice and conclude that no basis exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in 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  issues  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-2006-01496 in Executive Session  on  11  July  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 May 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair