RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01914
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 DEC 07

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he was in the process of correcting his  minor
infractions.  He believes personnel who tested positive for  abusing  drugs
or who were administered article 15’s received the same type  of  discharge
as he.  He believes his infractions were minor and  do  not  warrant  being
placed in the same category as others with more severe  infractions,  as  a
result he believes his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable.

The complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Jan 86. On 24 Aug 87,  he
was notified by his commander that he was  recommending  he  be  discharged
from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative
Separation of Airman for misconduct (Minor Disciplinary Infractions).   The
specific reasons for this action were on 3 Jun 87, he received a Letter  of
Counseling for engaging in a  fight  with  his  roommate;  on 18 May 05  he
failed to return five video tapes in a  timely  manner  to  a  local  video
store; on 5 May 87, he received a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR)  for   passing
counterfeit bills on two separate occasions; on 9 Mar 87,  he  received  an
LOR for writing a worthless check; on 18 Feb 87, he  received  an  LOR  for
writing another worthless check; on 6  Feb  87,  he  received  an  LOR  for
failing to move his vehicle as directed by his assigned crew chief during a
ground emergency on a C-141 aircraft; and  on  7 Oct  86  he  was  60  days
delinquent on paying his club bill.  He was advised of his  rights  and  he
acknowledged receipt on 24 Aug 87.  The  applicant  consulted  counsel  but
elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal  review  of
his case the base legal office found it legally sufficient and  recommended
a general discharge.  Applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first
class on 21 Sep 87 with service characterized as general  (under  honorable
conditions).  He served a total of 1 year, 7 months and 23 days  on  active
duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Washington, DC., provided an investigation report for review  and  response
within 14 days and to date no response has been received. (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of   the
discharge regulation.  In addition, the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  He did not submit any new  evidence
or identify any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  his  discharge
processing.  The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he was assaulted from behind by his  roommate  because  he
would not allow the houseboy in the room because he had stolen items in the
past.  Despite  being  assaulted  by  his  roommate,  he  never  physically
assaulted his roommate. Applicant admits to returning the  video  tapes  in
late.  He believes he was falsely accused of paying  for  merchandise  with
counterfeit bills and states he was sleep at the time and the charges  were
subsequently dropped.  He states he did not follow directions from his crew
chief because the crew chief wanted him to drive the crash truck into a JP-
4 fuel spill which he had always been taught not to do.  He  states  if  he
had driven the truck in the fuel spill, it is possible a spark  could  have
ignited and killed the entire crew.  He further states while working  as  a
paramedic he has received several letters of  commendations  for  excellent
work and for several cardiac arrest  saves.   In  addition,  he  has  since
earned his associate and  bachelors  degree  and  deployed  to  Iraq  as  a
contract firefighter and paramedic.  He believes he has had a change in his
character since his discharge that now reflects  his  true  character.   He
hopes the board will upgrade his  discharge  and  change  his  reenlistment
code.  Since the applicant has separated from the Air Force, he has  served
in the community by volunteering with the local  fire  department  and  the
ambulance corporation. He also went back to school and earned his paramedic
certification and now works  with  the  New  York  City  Emergency  Medical
Services.  Prior to this, he worked for a private ambulance service  caring
and transporting patients.
The applicant  submitted  several  character  reference  letters,  training
certificates and letters of appreciations.

His complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to  affect
his discharge and characterization of his service  were  improper,  contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect  at  the  time,  or
based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Therefore,  we  agree  with
the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of   primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

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-
01914 in Executive Session on 21 Sep 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Mr.  Joseph D. Yount, Member
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 28 Jul 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jul 06.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 06.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s response, dated 21 Aug 06.





                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair