RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01632
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 December 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his separation he was told to wait  a  minimum  of  at
least six months  to  request  to  have  his  discharge  upgraded  to
honorable.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted  a  personal  statement
and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)  on  16 December
1985 in the grade of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 27 October 1986 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  a   pattern   of
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order  and  discipline.   The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 3 October 1986, the applicant received an  Article  15
for failure to go at the time prescribed to his  appointed  place  of
duty.

      b.    On 15 July 1986,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for sleeping on duty.

      c.    On 28 April 1986, the applicant received a Memorandum for
Record for failure to go at the  time  prescribed  to  his  appointed
place of duty.

The commander advised the applicant of his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been  obtained  for  him;
submit statements in his own behalf;  and  that  failure  to  consult
counsel or to submit statements would  constitute  a  waiver  of  his
right to do so.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that  the
applicant had been counseled numerous times by his supervisor,  First
Sergeant and Commander and the  counseling  had  no  bearing  on  the
applicant’s attitude or work.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge
and indicated he would submit statements in his own behalf.  However,
the applicant never submitted any statements.

On 3 November 1986, a legal review was conducted in which  the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant receive an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 4 November 1986, the discharge authority approved  the  separation
and directed that the applicant be discharges with a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 26 November 1986  under
the provisions of AFR 39-10,  Administration  Separation  of  Airman,
with a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   He  was
credited with 11 months and 11 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 26 June 2006, that, on the basis of data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.   He
provided no facts warranting a change in his character of service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  on
23 June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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 its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust.  The applicant was discharged for  a  pattern  of
misconduct.  His records reflect he received several counselings  from
his supervisor, first sergeant and commander in effort to improve  his
conduct and these rehabilitative efforts failed.  However, should  the
applicant  provide  documentation  pertaining  to   his   post-service
accomplishments and activities, this Board would be willing to  review
the materials for possible reconsideration of  his  request  based  on
clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling 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-
2006-01632 in Executive Session on 15 August 2006 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jun 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.




                                        RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair