RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03212
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 APRIL 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed that his discharge would  be  automatically  upgraded
after six months.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)  on  17 November
1986 in the grade of airman first class (A1C) for a  period  of  four
years.

On 6 October 1993, the applicant’s commander notified him that he  was
recommending  him  for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  Conduct
Prejudicial  to  Good  Order  and  Discipline.   The   commander   was
recommending  the  applicant  receive  a  general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge.  The specific reasons for the discharge  action
were:

      a.    On 18 August 1993, the  applicant  was  relieved  of  duty
pending disciplinary action which resulted in him being  withdrawn  of
the authority to bear firearms.

      b.    On 27 August 1993, the applicant received  an  Article  15
for impersonating a security police with higher authority.

      c.    On 20 November 1992, the applicant received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for conduct unbecoming of  a  noncommissioned  officer
(NCO).  He engaged in an inappropriate  relationship  with  a  married
woman.

The commander advised the applicant that military  counsel  had  been
obtained to  assist  him;  present  his  case  to  an  administrative
discharge board; be represented by legal counsel at a board  hearing;
submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or  in  lieu  of,
the board hearing; or waive the above rights  after  consulting  with
counsel.

On  8  October  1993,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and after  consulting  with  legal  counsel
submitted a conditional waiver  of  his  rights  associated  with  an
administrative discharge hearing contingent upon  receiving  no  less
than an general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Headquarters Pacific Air Force legal office and the base legal office
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  leally  sufficient  to   support
separation and recommended  the  applicant’s  conditional  waiver  be
accepted and he  be  discharged  with  an  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.

On 29 October 1983, the discharge authority approved  the  separation
and directed the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5 November  1993  under
the provisions of Air Force Regulation  (AFR)  39-10,  Administration
Separation of Airman (misconduct), with a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.  He was served on active credited with 6 year,
11 months and 18 days of active duty service.

The applicant appealed  to  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) in 1995 and 1996 to have his general  discharge  upgraded  to
honorable.  The AFDRB determined the applicant’s discharge  was  with
the procedural and substantive requirement of the discharge authority
and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.   The
AFDRB further concluded that no legal or equitable bases exist for an
upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).


___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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 in his character of service.

A copy of the AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1
December 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 Air Force
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s contention that he was told
his discharge would automatically be upgraded after 6 months  is  duly
noted.  However, there are no regulations or directives that allow  an
automatic upgrade of a  discharge.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we find no evidence to show that  the  applicant’s
discharge was erroneous or  unjust.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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-
2006-03212  in  Executive  Session  on  1  February  2007  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 06.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Oct 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.




                                        CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                        Panel Chair