RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01034
                                             INDEX CODE:  106.00, 110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  October 2, 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His characterization of service be upgraded  from  general  under  honorable
conditions to honorable, and  his  Reenlistment  Eligibility  Code  (RE)  be
upgraded so he can reenlist in the Air Force Reserve and volunteer to  serve
overseas in the war in Iraq.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served for three years with above  average  service.   He  scored  Expert
Marksmanship during Basic Training, completed Security Specialist Course  in
a timely and efficient manner, completed his  5-skill  level  in  the  first
three months at his duty station, became a Fire Team  Leader,  was  selected
and became certified  as  a  Priority-A  Entry  Controller  in  the  Weapons
Storage Area, was chosen to appear before the E-4  Below-The-Zone  Promotion
Board, was selected to go to the Law Enforcement Squadron for  6-month  duty
as an Elite Gate Guard,  became  a  shift  leader  in  the  Security  Police
Armory, received numerous  Certificates  of  Accommodation  and  Letters  of
Appreciation throughout his  career,  and  all  of  his  Airman  Performance
Reports were overall 9 ratings.

His performance  declined  in  his  last  few  months  due  to  his  marital
separation, and he believes other actions could have been taken rather  that
a discharge, especially  one  with  a  general  under  honorable  conditions
characterization.

In support of his  application,  he  has  submitted  copies  of  a  personal
statement, dated 12 February 2007, his DD Form 214, dated  14  August  1989,
and correspondence with the office of Senator Christopher S. Bond (MO).

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

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 June 1986 for a period  of
six years, and served as a security specialist.

On 6 July  1989,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  for
unsatisfactory performance, specifically.

        a. Dishonored  Check  Notification,  dated  19  November  1986,  for
           rendering a dishonored check on 3 November 1986, in the amount of
           $24.94

        b. Notice of Indebtedness, dated 13 April 1987, for failure  to  pay
           his rent in a timely manner

        c.  Dishonored  Check  Notification,  dated  9  October  1987,   for
           rendering a dishonored check on 26 September 1987, in the  amount
           of $21.05

        d. Letter of Reprimand, dated 28  March  1989,  for  dereliction  of
           duties  in  that  he  failed  to  train,  supervise,  lead,   and
           discipline his armory team

        e. Letter of Reprimand, dated 11 May 1989,  for  failure  to  go  by
           failing to attend a mandatory Social Actions appointment for  the
           Alcohol Rehabilitation Program

        f. Letter of Counseling, dated 30 May  1989,  for  having  a  female
           spend the night in his dormitory room even though he was  legally
           married

        g. Letter of Reprimand, dated 30 May 1989, for dereliction  of  duty
           in that he failed to maintain his  accounted  for  weapons  in  a
           clean and serviceable manner

        h. Letter of Reprimand, dated 30 May  1989,  for  improper  care  of
           household and pets in that he did not provide a proper place  for
           his pets while he was in the hospital, and  his  Military  Family
           Housing was in total shambles and totally dirty

        i. Letter of Reprimand, dated 12 June 1989, for violating  a  lawful
           written order not to drink alcoholic beverages

        j. Letter of Reprimand, dated 12 June 1989, for disrespect to an NCO
           in that while being apprehended for drinking alcohol while  being
           under orders not to do so, he became belligerent,  uncooperative,
           and disrespectful

The commander advised applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
submit statements in his  own  behalf,  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 12 July 1989,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  submitted  a
written statement to his commander in  which  he  expressed  his  desire  to
remain in the Air Force, and stated that  his  decline  in  job  performance
started when his wife and two young boys left him due to  marital  problems.
He moved into the dormitory for the first  time  in  his  career  and,  with
these drastic changes in his personal life, started drinking, thinking  this
would be the answer to his problems.

A legal review was conducted on 17 July  1989,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate   recommended   applicant   be   discharged   for    unsatisfactory
performance, with a general discharge characterization.

On 14 August 1989, applicant was discharged in the grade  of  senior  airman
(E-4) for unsatisfactory performance IAW AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-26a.   He
was given an under honorable conditions discharge characterization,  and  an
RE Code of 2B, Separated with a  General  or  UOTHC  Discharge,  which  bars
immediate reenlistment.  He served a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 5  days
of net active service.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      18 Mar 1989                            9
      23 Mar 1988                       9
       9 Jun 1987                       9

Applicant is entitled to wear the Air Force Training Ribbon, the  Air  Force
Outstanding Unit Award, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon  with  one
Device, and the Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Long.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of  an  Investigation  Report  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the  characterization  of  his  discharge
was contrary to AFR 39-10 (extract copy attached as Exhibit G), nor  has  he
shown that the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or  disproportionate
to the offense  committed.   At  the  time  of  his  discharge,  AFR  39-10,
paragraph 1-18b, stated that characterization  of  service  as  general  was
warranted  if  an  airman’s  service  had  been  honest  and  faithful,  but
significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of  duty
outweighed positive aspects of the airman’s  military  record.   AFR  39-10,
paragraph 5-25, further stated that airmen should be discharged  when  their
unsatisfactory performance or conduct showed they  were  not  qualified  for
service in the Air Force. Performance in the Air  Force  included,  but  was
not limited to, work done as assigned duties,  military  training,  bearing,
and   behavior,   and   necessarily   included   the   member’s   continuing
responsibility for maintaining the high standards of personal  behavior  and
conduct required of military members at all times.

AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-26, stated that airmen were subject to discharge  for
unsatisfactory performance based on documented failure  to  meet  Air  Force
standards.   Commanders  were  to  weigh  an  airman’s   conduct,   military
deportment, and duty performance against  those  of  other  airmen  of  like
grade, age, and length of service, and paragraph 5-26a stated  that  one  or
more  of  the  following  could  be  used  as  a  basis  for  discharge  for
unsatisfactory performance:  failure to perform assigned duties properly,  a
progressively downward trend in performance ratings, failure to  demonstrate
the qualities of leadership required  by  the  member’s  grade,  failure  to
maintain standards of dress, personal appearance,  or  military  deportment,
failure  to  progress  in  on-the-job  training,  irresponsibility  in   the
management of personal  finances,  unsanitary  habits,  exceeding  body  fat
standards, and failure to meet minimum fitness standards.

The applicant has not alleged any impropriety in the  manner  in  which  the
discharge was conducted, and  the  record  indicates  he  was  afforded  all
rights to which he was entitled.  However, notwithstanding  the  absence  of
error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to  grant  relief  on  the
basis of clemency if so inclined.

On 17 April 2007, the SAF/MRB  Legal  Advisor  provided  a  generic  opinion
concerning service characterization which is contained at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the 17 April 2007 SAF/MRB Legal  Advisory  was  forwarded
to the applicant on 9 May 2007, for  review  and  comment  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, no response has  been  received  by  this  office.
Additionally, applicant was  given  a  chance  on  9  May  2007  to  provide
information within 30 days pertaining to his activities  since  leaving  the
service.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

A copy of the FBI, Clarksburg, WV, Report of Investigation was forwarded  to
the applicant on 9 May 2007, for review and  comment  within  30  days.   He
responded in an undated letter, stating that if he was guilty, he would  not
be putting himself in this position.  Applicant  stated  that  he  was  good
friends with a 15 year old girl and her parents in  Euless,  TX.   The  girl
became pregnant and thought that by using his name, her punishment would  be
lessened due to the close compatibility and friendship between  himself  and
her parents.  As his record states, he was charged,  and  in  the  state  of
Texas, all charges become a matter of record.  He was not convicted  of  any
of these charges, and did not do probation, parole, or  register  as  a  sex
offender, pedophile, etc.  His only wish is  to  have  his  military  record
upgraded and his RE code changed to a positive.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.  There  is  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of  applicant's
discharge or the RE Code assigned.  It appears that responsible  officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we  do  not
find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or  that
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of
discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings  were
proper, and the characterization of the discharge and the RE Code assigned
were appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated  the
discharge, and the lack of  available  evidence  related  to  post-service
activities and accomplishments.  Based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  we
cannot conclude  that  clemency  is  warranted.   The  applicant  has  not
provided  any  information  concerning  his  post-service  activities  and
accomplishments for us to conclude that he  has  overcome  the  behavioral
traits which caused the discharge.   Should  he  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his  good  character  and
reputation and other evidence of successful  post-service  rehabilitation,
this Board will reconsider this  case  based  on  the  new  evidence.   We
cannot, however, recommend approval  based  on  the  current  evidence  of
record.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01034
in Executive Session on 11 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:



                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, US DOJ FBI, dated 27 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 May 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit G.  AFR 39-10 Extracts, dated 9 Aug 91.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair