RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02861
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  Mar 24, 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

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

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 10 April 1985 and served  as  an  Inventory
Management Specialist before being separated on 10 June 1987,  receiving  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge for  misconduct  (pattern  of
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).  During  this  period  of
service, applicant received one Letter of Counseling  and  five  Letters  of
Reprimand  for  misconduct  to  include  failure  to  achieve  adequate  job
knowledge, failure to obey a direct order by  not  reporting  to  work  with
full mobility gear and processing paperwork,  failure  to  pay  just  debts,
failure to notify the squadron of his correct address,  failure  to  obey  a
direct order to deregister his car after allowing his  insurance  to  lapse,
and writing a series of bad checks with insufficient funds  in  his  account
to cover them.

Applicant’s commander notified him on 22 May 1987 that she was  recommending
his  discharge  for  misconduct,  specifically,  a  pattern  of   misconduct
prejudicial to good order and discipline, and that she was recommending  his
service be characterized as general.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
notification and, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to  submit
statements in his own behalf on 27 May 1987.  A legal review was
conducted on 5 June 1987, in which  the  staff  judge  advocate  recommended
applicant  be  discharged  for   misconduct   with   a   general   discharge
characterization.  Applicant was discharged on 10 June 1987 in the grade  of
Airman First Class (E-3), with an under honorable conditions discharge,   in
accordance with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47b,  for  misconduct  –  pattern  of
misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He served a  total  of
two years, two months, and one day.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of  an  Investigation  Report  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFCP/DPPRS recommends denial, stating the discharge was consistent with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation,  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, and that he provided no facts warranting a  change
to his general discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  13
October 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this
office has received no response.

A copy of the FBI,  Clarksburg,  WV,  investigation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 November 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  There appears to be no impropriety or inequity in the characterization
of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting the separation,  and  we  do  not  find
persuasive evidence that  pertinent  regulations  were  violated  or  that
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of
discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings  were
proper and characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related to post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that
clemency  is  warranted.  Applicant  has  not  provided  any   information
pertaining to  post-service  activities  and  accomplishments  for  us  to
conclude that applicant has overcome the behavioral  traits  which  caused
the discharge. Should applicant provide statements from community  leaders
and acquaintances attesting to applicant's good character  and  reputation
and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation,  this  Board
will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot,  however,
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02861
in Executive Session on 17 January 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, US DOJ FBI, dated 2 Nov 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Oct 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Nov 06.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair