RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00041
      INDEX CODE:  100.07; 110.00
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  13 JULY 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to  honorable
and his four-week, Fire Protection Rescue School  training  (1983-1984),  be
added to his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His marital problems caused him stress and anxiety.  He was  late  for  work
and missed appointments.  He loved his job and was a good worker who  always
had high marks on his performance reports.  He served his country  honorably
and would like his record to reflect as such.

His Fire Protection Rescue School is not listed  on  his  DD  Form  214.  He
would like it added because it was a very difficult course and he was  proud
to finish it.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his  DD  Form
214 and his application for the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (DD  Form
293).  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 Mar 80, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age  of
18 in the grade of airman for a period of 4  years.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of sergeant with a date of rank of 1 Mar 84.

Block 14 on his DD 214, Military Education, indicates his course  completion
as  Basic  Military  Training  School,  6  weeks,  1980;   Fire   Protection
Specialist Course (tech school), 8  weeks,  1980;  OJT  Trainee  Orientation
Course, Aug 80, and NCO Orientation Course, Phase I, Jan 84.

A resume of his airman  performance  reports,  commencing  with  the  report
ending 26 Feb 85 follows:

Closeout Date    Overall Performance

26 Feb 85        6
 3 Sep 84        8
 6 May 84        8
 5 Jul 83        8
15 Feb 83        9
12 Jan 82        8
12 Jan 81        8

The applicant was involved in a number  of  minor  disciplinary  infractions
from  Nov  82  through  Feb  85,  receiving   various   administrative   and
disciplinary actions.

As a result,6 Nov 85, the applicant’s commander notified  him  that  he  was
recommending his separation from the Air Force under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10, para 5-46 for repeated minor  disciplinary  actions.   The  applicant
was advised of his  rights.   The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification and, after consulting military legal counsel, waived his  right
to submit statements in his own behalf.  The commander thereafter  initiated
a recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated  21  Nov  85,  the  staff
judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient  and  recommended  that
the applicant be  separated  from  the  service  with  a  general  discharge
without  opportunity  for  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge
authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant  be
discharged for the reasons recommended by his commander.

On 26 Nov 85, the applicant was discharged  because  of  misconduct  with  a
pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.  He had served 5 years, 8  months
and 17 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the  basis  of
information furnished.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in  the  applicant’s  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.  Additionally, the applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of  his
discharge.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT recommends denial. DPPAT  requested  additional  documentation
or evidence from the applicant to show completion  of  the  Fire  Protection
Rescue School; however he did not respond.

The complete DPPRT evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  23
Mar 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response (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  an  error  or  injustice.   Regarding  the  upgrade  of   the
applicant’s discharge, other than his  own  assertions,  the  applicant  has
provided no evidence that would lead us to  believe  the  actions  taken  to
effect  his  discharge  were  improper,  or  that  the  information  in  his
discharge case file is  erroneous.   Additionally,  the  applicant  has  not
provided  evidence   pertaining   to   his   post-service   activities   and
accomplishments to support possible favorable consideration of  his  request
based on clemency; therefore, this request is denied.  Should the  applicant
provide statements from community leaders  and  acquaintances  attesting  to
his good character and reputation and other  evidence  of  successful  post-
service life, we would be willing to reconsider his request.   Additionally,
we  also  find  no  basis  to  grant  the  applicant’s  request  to  reflect
completion of the Fire Protection Rescue School in  his  records.   We  note
the applicant failed to provide evidence of his completion of the school  as
requested  by  AFPC/DPPAT.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion   and
recommendation of DPPAT and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
decision to deny relief.

________________________________________________________________

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 15 May 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
            Mr. Don H. Kendrick., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-00041:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.




      MICHAEL V. BARBINO
      Panel Chair