RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02748
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 MAR 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received an honorable discharge due to a medical condition.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 May 1985 in  the  grade  of
airman basic.  On 3 June 1986, applicant was notified by  his  commander  of
his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, chapter 5, section H, paragraph 5-46, Misconduct  –
Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  Specifically, he received  an  Article  15,
nonjudicial punishment for failure to go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty; four Letters of Counseling (LOCs)  for  failure  to
lose five pounds as he was required to do  in  accordance  with  the  Weight
Management Program (WMP), failure to  report  for  duty  on  time,  and  for
failure to respond to his assigned vehicle during  a  structural  emergency;
he received seven Letters of Reprimands (LORs) for his failure to lose  five
pounds, as required under the  WMP,  failure  to  go  to  a  scheduled  diet
counseling and exercise class, and for writing four personal checks  in  the
total amount of $80.00 which were dishonored upon presentment; and a  Record
of Counseling (ROC) for writing  a  personal  check  for  $25.00  which  was
dishonored upon presentment.  He was advised of his rights  in  this  matter
and acknowledged receipt of the  notification  on  that  same  date.   After
consulting with counsel applicant elected to submit statements  on  his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate  found
the case legally sufficient and recommended that he  be  discharged.   On  8
July 1986, the discharge authority concurred with  the  recommendations  and
directed that he be discharged with a general discharge,  without  probation
and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on 10 July  1986.   He  served
one year, two months and three days on active duty.

On 9 May 1991, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered  and
denied  the  applicant’s  request  that   his   general   (under   honorable
conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an  honorable   discharge.    They
concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the  discretion  of
the  discharge  authority  and  that  the  applicant   was   provided   full
administrative due process (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify  with
an arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states 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 to his general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 October 2006, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date,  this  office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________






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.   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 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.  The applicant has  failed
to demonstrate that his commander exceeded his authority or that the  reason
for his discharge  was  inaccurate  or  inappropriate.   In  regard  to  his
contention that he should have received an  honorable  discharge  due  to  a
medical condition, evidence has not been provided which  would  lead  us  to
believe a medical condition existed at  the  time  of  his  discharge  which
would  have  warranted  consideration  through  the  Disability   Evaluation
System.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 28 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2006-02748 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 06.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Sep 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.





                       CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                       Panel Chair