RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01277
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 October 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly separated due to his weight, not for misconduct.  He  passed
all fitness tests and performed all job duties without  any  write-ups.   By
today’s Air Force standards, he would  have  been  allowed  to  complete  20
years of service or more as long as he passed his  fitness  tests,  did  his
job, and stayed out of trouble.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 February 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force at the  age  of
21.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior  airman  effective
and with a date of rank of 22 March 1987.

On 30 August 1985, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling  (LOC)  for
failure to complete required inspections.  On 12 January 1987,  he  received
an LOC for poor attitude and failure to complete tasks.  On 16  March  1987,
he received an LOC for failure to complete his work tasks and  leaving  work
early.  On 15 May 1987, he  received  an  LOC  for  his  activities  in  the
dormitory such as  playing  loud  music,  slamming  doors,  and  cooking  in
unauthorized areas.  On 18 May 1987, the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for failure to maintain  his  dormitory  room.   On  19  May
1987, he  received  an  LOR  for  being  charged  for  illegal  parking,  no
registration, no proof of insurance, and an expired tag.

On 14 January 1987, the applicant was notified he was  enrolled  into  Phase
One of the Weight Management Program (WMP) changing  his  RE  code  to  “2X”
(first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not  selected  for
reenlistment under  the  selective  reenlistment  program).   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt and chose not to appeal  the  decision.   On  22  March
1987, following progress in the WMP,  the  applicant  was  notified  he  was
enrolled into Phase Two of the WMP changing his RE Code  to  “1J”  (eligible
to reenlist).

On 22 July 1987, the applicant received Article 15  punishment  for  failure
to go at the  prescribed  time  to  his  appointed  place  of  duty  without
authority.  His punishment consisted of  reduction  to  airman  first  class
with a new date of rank of 22 July 1987  and  forfeiture  of  $150  pay  per
month for  two  months.   That  portion  of  his  punishment  pertaining  to
forfeiture of pay was suspended until 21 January 1988.

On 5 August 1987, his commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
recommend the applicant for discharge  based  on  his  misconduct,  to  wit:
minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the
notification; however, failed to respond to the commander’s request  of  his
decision to consult counsel or to submit statements in  his  own  behalf  by
the suspense date of 11 August 1987.   On  10  August  1987,  the  commander
signed a recommendation to  the  discharge  authority  for  the  applicant’s
discharge based on  misconduct  under  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-46  with  a
general discharge.  On 4 September 1987, the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate
found the  commander’s  recommendation  to  be  legally  sufficient.   On  4
September  1987,  the   discharge   authority   approved   the   recommended
separation.    The   discharge   authority    considered    probation    and
rehabilitation; however, determined the applicant had  demonstrated  neither
the potential nor the capacity to be rehabilitated and stated the  retention
of the applicant on active duty would be inconsistent with  the  maintenance
of good order and discipline.

On 8 September 1987, the applicant was  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason  for  separation  of
“Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions” and a  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (discharged  under  general  conditions).   He
served for a period of 3 years, 6 months, and 15 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.

On 23 May 2007, the applicant was given the opportunity to  submit  comments
about his post service  activities.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the  characterization  of  his  discharge
was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airmen, paragraph 5-46 (Misconduct – Pattern  of  Minor  Infractions).   Nor
has the applicant shown the nature of the  discharge  was  unduly  harsh  or
disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Notwithstanding the absence  of
error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to  grant  relief  on  the
basis of clemency if so inclined.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Based upon the presumption  of  regularity
in  the  conduct  of  governmental  affairs  and  without  evidence  to  the
contrary, we must assume that the applicant's characterization of  discharge
was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore,  based
on the available evidence  of  record,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider 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 19 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Chair
                 Ms. Terri G. Spoutz, Member
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2007-01277:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 9 Apr 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 23 May 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Excerpt of AFR 39-10, dtd 1 Oct 84.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair