RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03404
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 APRIL 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and change his separation code.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the punishment he received was too harsh for what he did.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his  DD  Form
214 and character letters.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered military service on 2 December 1981.

On 6 January 1989, the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct.  The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On  3  June  1987,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his
delinquent account with Sylvan Furniture.

      b.    On 9 July 1987, the applicant received a Pacific Air Force
(PACAF) Form 58, for failing to report to a scheduled  appointment  on
or about 6 July 1987.

      c.    On 9 July 1987, the applicant received a PACAF Form 58 for
failure to accept Noncommissioned Officer (NCO)  responsibilities  and
substandard job performance.

      d.    On 9 July 1987, the applicant received a PACAF Form 58 for
failing to correctly execute fuel system repair duties on or  about  8
July 1987 and failed to report to a scheduled appointment on or  about
6 July 1987.

      e.    On 10 July 1987, the applicant received a  PACAF  Form  58
for committing a safety violation on or about 9 July 1987.

      f.    On 15 July 1987, the  applicant  received  counseling  for
failing to report to a scheduled medical appointment  on  or  about  7
July 1987.

      g.    On 21 July 1987, the applicant received notification for a
delinquent check at the Bowling Center on or about 28 June 1987.

      h.    On 27 July 1987, the applicant received a LOR  and  a  UIF
entry for his delinquent account with American  Express  International
Banking Corporation.

      i.    On 14 August 1987, the applicant received notification  of
his delinquent account with Sylvan Furniture.

      j.    On 8 December 1987, the applicant  received  a  Memorandum
for Record (MOR) for his delinquent account with the  National  Credit
Services.

      k.    On 21 December 1987, the applicant received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for failing to report for duty.

      l.    On 12 February 1988, the applicant  received  notification
of his failure to complete requirements for  his  Occupational  Health
Medical Examination.

      m.    On 17 February 1988, the applicant received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for failing to report for a  scheduled  training
duty appointment on 12 February 1988.

      n.    On 17 February 1988, the applicant received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for failing to report for a  scheduled  training
appointment.

      o.    On 18 February 1988,  the  applicant  received  a  No-Show
Letter for failing to report for a scheduled appointment on 11 January
1988.

      p.    On 18 February 1988, the applicant received  a  UIF  entry
for his delinquent account with the NCO Club.

      q.    On 24 February 1988, the applicant NCO status was  vacated
for his failure to meet  NCO  responsibilities  and  substandard  duty
performance.

      r.    On 25 February 1988, the applicant received a  LOR  and  a
UIF entry for chronic financial irresponsibility,  failure  to  attend
scheduled appointments and failure to report to work on time.

      s.    On 18 March 1988, the applicant received an Article 15 for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

      t.    On 23 May 1988, the applicant received notification of his
delinquent account from the RAM Corporation.

      u.    On 11 June 1988, the applicant received a traffic citation
for driving with an expired safety inspection sticker.

      v.    On 22 July 1988, the applicant received a Dishonored Check
Notification for writing a check on a closed account.

      w.    On 13 August 1988, the  applicant  received  a  Dishonored
Check Notification  for  uttering  a  dishonored  check  on  or  about
7 January 1988 to the Exchange.

      x.    On 25 August 1988, the applicant received  an  Article  15
and a UIF entry for writing checks on  an  account  with  insufficient
funds.

      y.    On 9 December 1988, the applicant received a LOR and a UIF
entry for malingering.

      z.    On 15 December 1988, the applicant received a  LOR  and  a
UIF entry for signing a false official statement.

The commander  advised  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.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that  the
applicant had been counseled extensively by the  squadron  commander,
section commander and first sergeant.

On  6  January  1988,  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.

On 30 January 1989, 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
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 2 February 1989, 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 22 February 1989  under
the provisions of Air Force Regulation  (AFR)  39-10,  Administration
Separation of Airman (misconduct-pattern of  conduct  prejudicial  to
good  order  and  discipline),  with  a  general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 7 years, 1 month and  26
days of active duty service.

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.

AFPC/DPPR’S 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 is requesting  his  discharge
be upgraded and RE code be changed.  Based on the documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  In regard to the RE
code, the applicant has not provided any  evidence  showing  that  the
assigned  RE  code  was  in  error  or  contrary  to  the   prevailing
regulation.  It appears that the decision to  separate  the  applicant
was proper based on his situation at the time and RE  code  which  was
issued at the time of his discharge was proper and in compliance  with
the appropriate directives and accurately reflected the  circumstances
of his separation, i.e., misconduct  –  conduct  prejudicial  to  good
order and discipline.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03404  in  Executive  Session  on  11  January  2007  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Todd L. Schaffer, Member
                       Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Nov 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.




                                        LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                        Panel Chair