RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03700
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 110.00,
					 126.00, 133.00 
		COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION 
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the rank of staff sergeant.

3.  He be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) 
and that it be added to his DD Form 214.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His divorce and the actions of his ex-wife, who put him in debt 
during their legal separation, were used to discredit his 
service record.

He was awarded an expeditionary medal for his service in Greece 
and other foreign countries; however, it is not listed on his DD 
Form 214.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD 
Form 214, and a letter from his representative at The American 
Legion.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from    
6 Jan 76 to 7 Jul 86 and was progressively promoted to the grade 
of staff sergeant.

On 14 Jun 86, while applicant was serving in the grade of airman 
first class, his commander notified him that he was recommending 
his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct.  
The applicant’s misconduct included two Article 15 nonjudicial 
punishment actions, and numerous letters of reprimand, 
admonishment, and counseling for failure to perform required 
security checks, failure to go, repeated AFR 35-10 violations, 
financial irresponsibility, cheating on a firing range test, 
reckless driving and speeding, and insubordination.
 
On 15 Jan 85, applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for failure to go at the prescribed time to his place 
of duty.  After consulting with his military defense counsel, he 
waived his right to a court-martial and accepted proceedings 
under Article 15.  He provided defense matters in writing for 
the commander’s consideration, and elected to request a personal 
hearing before the commander.  On 24 Jan 85, the commander 
imposed punishment consisting of reduction in rank to sergeant 
(E-4) with a new date of rank of 25 Jan 85, forfeiture of 
$50.00, and 30 days of correctional custody, the correctional 
custody was suspended until 21 Apr 85.  He appealed and 
submitted matters in writing.  His appeal was denied.

On 24 Apr 86, applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for being derelict in performing his duties of 
conducting security checks in a priority “A” area.  After 
consulting with his military defense counsel, he waived his 
right to a court-martial and accepted proceedings under Article 
15.  He provided defense matters in writing for the commander’s 
consideration, but elected not to request a personal hearing 
before the commander.  On 2 May 86, the commander imposed 
punishment consisting of reduction in rank to airman first class 
(E-3) with a new date of rank of 2 May 86 and 30 days of 
correctional custody.  The applicant appealed and submitted 
matters in writing.  His appeal was denied.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge 
and that he had consulted with military counsel.  On 16 Jun 86, 
applicant offered a conditional waiver of the rights associated 
with an administrative discharge board hearing, contingent on 
his receipt of no less than a general discharge.   

The XX Air Force Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case file and 
found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended 
a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 30 
Jun 86, the discharge authority approved the separation and 
directed a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 7 Jul 86, in the grade of airman 
first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for 
Misconduct-Pattern of discreditable involvement with military or 
civilian authorities, and received a general discharge.  He 
served on active duty for ten years, six months, and two days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request on 23 Jun 08, the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 16 Jul 
08, that, on the basis of data furnished, they were unable to 
locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial to change his rank on his DD 
Form 214 from airman first class to staff sergeant.  DPSOE 
states the applicant provided no supporting documentation as to 
why his record is in error or that an injustice occurred.  His 
commander acted within her authority when she administered the 
Article 15 punishments.    

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of applicant’s request to 
upgrade his discharge.  DPSOS states based on the documentation 
on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The 
discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  
He provided no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred 
during his discharge processing and he provided no facts 
warranting a change to his character of service.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the AFEM.  DPSIDR states the 
AFEM was established on 4 Dec 61, to be awarded to members of 
the United States armed forces who, after 1 Jul 58, have 
participated in a United States military operation and 
encountered foreign armed opposition, or were in danger of 
hostile action by foreign armed forces.  According to the DoD 
1348.33-M, no official military operation was awarded the AFEM 
in Greece during the period the applicant was assigned.

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an 
upgrade of his discharge.  There is no evidence of an error or 
injustice that occurred in the Article 15 processes.  Each 
commander was certainly justified in imposing a punishment which 
included a reduction in grade for the applicant’s violation of 
military law.  So long as they are acting within the scope of 
authority granted them by law, their judgment should not be 
disturbed just because others might disagree.  Despite his 
substantial pattern of misconduct spanning his entire active 
duty career, he received a general discharge.  Undoubtedly, his 
commander could have easily justified giving him an under other 
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  The applicant 
provides no evidence that the Article 15 actions and subsequent 
administrative discharge constitutes an injustice, nor a 
character statement attesting any improvement in his behavior 
since separating from the military.  

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 May 08, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To 
date, a response has not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  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 Docket Number    
BC-2007-03700 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2007-03700 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 16 Jul 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Feb 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Feb 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 18 Mar 08.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 May 08.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08. 
   




								XXXXXXXXXXXXX
								Panel Chair