RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02719
      INDEX CODE:  110.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  11 MARCH 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The allegations  made  against  him  were  biased  and  made  to  look  more
offensive than they really were.  Due to a  change  in  the  times  and  his
status in his community, he feels he is qualified for  a  discharge  upgrade
(clemency).

His military records state he was unable to conform  to  military  standards
and that  rehabilitation  was  unwarranted.   He  refutes  the  Air  Force’s
opinion.  He fell in love with a woman who was soon  to  be  divorced.   She
was being  stalked  by  her  estranged  abusive  husband  and  the  military
stripped her of her international  driver’s  license  and  her  military  ID
card.  She had no military support and felt it imperative to  leave  Germany
and return to the United States.  After this incident, he lost all faith  in
the military and requested he be discharged.  He also wanted  to  return  to
the U.S. so that he and the woman could start their lives together.  He  has
been married for 17 years and is the owner of a local hardware  store  in  a
small, close-knit community.  He is on the church softball  team  and  helps
coach the church little league team.  He and his wife are  very  financially
responsible and hold very good credit scores.  He has a beautiful home in  a
wonderful neighborhood.  His home was obtained with help from  the  VA.   He
encouraged his stepson and  sister  to  join  the  US  Navy.   He  met  some
wonderful friends during his military career.  If  he  had  not  joined  the
military, he would possibly not be the man that he is  today  and  he  would
not have met his wife.  He has been a very successful and productive  member
of society and has earned the  right  to  have  his  discharge  upgraded  to
honorable.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submits   his   personal
statement, an excerpt from his  discharge  case  file,  and  a  copy  of  an
emergency medical care and treatment form.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Oct 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the  age
of 24 in the grade of airman first class for a period of 4 years.

On 22  Nov  1985,  he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  being
disrespectful in language and deportment  toward  a  senior  noncommissioned
officer.  On 11 Dec 1984, he was counseled for being  delinquent  in  making
deferred payment plan payments.

On 2 Feb 1986, he was negligent in his responsibilities toward his shift  by
failing to properly notify his supervisor about not reporting to work.   For
this offense, he received an LOR.  On 13 Feb 1986, he  received  an  Article
15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to  plow  the
streets on base and in base housing in a timely manner.  He received an  LOR
on 24 Feb 1986 for being found asleep on duty.

On 17 Apr 1986, he was involved in a domestic disturbance with  another  Air
Force member and his wife.  For this offense, he received a LOR.  On 23  Jun
1986, he failed a  room  inspection  for  which  he  received  a  letter  of
admonishment.

On 15 Oct  1986,  he  received  an  Article  15  for  being  engaged  in  an
adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wife.

On  3  Nov  1986,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending the applicant  be  separated  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Section H.  paragraph  5-46  because  of
Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The  applicant  was
advised of his rights, waived his right to consult counsel and  declined  to
submit statements in his own behalf.  The commander thereafter  initiated  a
recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

A legal review of the discharge case file found it  was  legally  sufficient
and recommended that the applicant be separated  from  the  service  with  a
general  discharge.   On  20 Nov  the  discharge  authority   approved   the
recommended separation and directed the  applicant  be  discharged  for  the
reasons recommended by his commander, without the  offer  of  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 8 Dec 1986, the applicant was separated from military service and  issued
a general discharge.  He had served four years, two months  and  8  days  on
active duty service to include two  years  four  months  and  five  days  of
Foreign Service.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify an arrest record pertaining  to  the  applicant  on  the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  indicates  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  Additionally, DPPPRS stated the applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge
processing, or provide any facts warranting a change  to  his  character  of
service.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response dated Oct 11, 2006, the  applicant  reiterates  his  earlier
contentions and adds  he  decided  he  wanted  to  be  discharged  from  the
military after seeing the way the military was treating him and  those  that
he loved.  He states he knows that a piece of  paper  does  not  depict  the
type of person that he was at the time and certainly  does  not  depict  the
type of person that he has become.  He is a  successful  businessman  and  a
devoted   friend   to   teachers,   preachers,   his   local   senator   and
representatives, councilmen, etc.  He brings a smile to everyone’s face  and
a little joy into everyone’s day.  He is a credit to his  family,  business,
church community and the entire human race.

________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  upgrading  the  applicant’s
discharge.  There is no indication in the available record  the  applicant’s
discharge  was  improper.   It  appears  the  applicant  is  requesting  his
discharge be upgraded based on the clemency consideration  of  a  successful
post-service adjustment.  Although the applicant  alleges  successful  post-
service activities over the past 20 years, he has  not  provided  sufficient
documentation in support of his claim for us to conclude that his  discharge
should  be  upgraded  based  on  clemency.   However,  his   submission   of
statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good
character and reputation  and  other  evidence  of  successful  post-service
rehabilitation   since   his   separation   may   constitute   grounds   for
reconsideration by this  Board.   We  cannot,  however,  recommend  approval
based on the current evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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  BC-2006-02719  in
Executive Session on 21 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia R.Collins, Member
                  Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 06 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 11 Oct 06




            MICHAEL J.NOVEL
            Panel Chair