RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03920
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 October 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable,  his  narrative  reason   for   separation   changed,   and   his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  permit  his  reentry  into
the military.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not dispute his record of service; however,  he  has  matured  since
his discharge and has acquired  work  experience  that  he  feels  would  be
useful to the military.  He was  young  and  immature  when  he  joined  the
military.  His work performance, in the years since, has been excellent.

The  applicant  provided  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  appeal.    The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 February 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.   He
was promoted to the grade of airman first class effective and  with  a  date
of rank of 26 March 1991.

On 31 May 1991, the applicant was  setback  to  Phase  II  of  training  for
failing to meet school formation.  On 6 May 1991, he received  a  letter  of
counseling (LOC) for reporting late  for  school  formation  and  missing  a
physical training (PT) test.  On 21  May  1991,  the  applicant  received  a
letter of reprimand (LOR) for reporting late  to  school  formation.   On  4
June 1991, he received an LOC for failing room inspections on 3 and  4  June
1991.  On 5 June 1991, the applicant was administratively set back in  Phase
II of training for failure to maintain room standards.  On 27 June 1991,  he
was administratively set back  to  Phase  II  of  training  for  failure  to
maintain  technical  training  responsibilities.   On  11  July  1991,   the
applicant received Article 15 punishment for  failure  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of  duty.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction to the  grade  of  airman  (E-1)  and  forfeiture  of  $197.   The
execution of that portion of the punishment which provided for reduction  in
grade to airman was suspended until 10 January 1992, at which time it  would
be remitted without  further  action.   On  15 August  1991,  the  applicant
received an LOR for failing a dormitory inspection on 14  August  1991.   On
15 August 1991, he was administratively set back in Phase I of training  for
failure to maintain room standards.

On 11 September 1991, his commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
being recommended for a general discharge under AFR 39-10,  paragraph  5-46,
for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  and
after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit statements in  his
own behalf.  The Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally  sufficient  on
19 September 1991 and recommended the applicant’s discharge with  a  general
characterization of service without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).   On
23 September 1991,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge  and
directed the applicant be discharged  with  a  general  characterization  of
service without P&R.

The applicant was discharged effective 25  September  1991  with  a  general
(under honorable conditions) characterization of service, a separation  code
of JKN (Misconduct – Pattern of Disciplinary  Infractions),  and  a  reentry
code of 2B (discharged under general  or  other-than-honorable  conditions).
He served 7 months, and 19 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of  the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest  record  pertaining  to
the applicant.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the  applicant’s  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not  provide  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stresses that he is not disputing his poor military  record.
He did what he thought was in the best interest of the Air  Force  at  the
time.   He  believes  that  confused  kids  can  grow  up  to  be  strong,
responsible adults.   He would like the chance, or  a  second  chance,  to
prove that.

The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not provide  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case was  erroneous,  his
substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  The character of discharge, RE code, and SPD code
 which were issued at the time of  the  applicant’s  separation  appear  to
accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do  not  find
them to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence
of evidence  by  the  applicant  attesting  to  a  successful  post-service
adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend
clemency in this case.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 7 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jeffrey R. Shelton, Member
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-03920:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated.




                                   CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair