RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01469
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 November 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His characterization of service be upgraded from general to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he was  not  advised  as  to  the  impact  his
reenlistment code (RE) would have on his reentry into military service.

He made  mistakes;  however,  he  received  favorable  Enlisted  Performance
Reports (EPR).

He was not recommended for rehabilitation, mentored, or offered  counseling.
 AFIs have changed since 1988, to include mentoring and  rehabilitation  for
young airmen.

He has matured  and  been  a  responsible  husband  and  father  since  this
incident at age 22, and desires to rejoin the military in a Reserve status.

In support of his appeal, he has submitted copies of EPRs for the periods  5
February 1986 through  4  February  1987,  and  5 February  1987  through  4
February 1988.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 February 1986 for a  period
of four years, and served as a services specialist.

On 28 October 1988, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  for
misconduct, specifically, minor disciplinary infractions.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. On 4 March 1988, he drove a motor vehicle off  base  while  under
           the influence of alcohol, and was convicted by civil  authorities
           on 21 March 1988.  He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated
           7 April 1988

        b. On 22 August 1988, he was derelict  in  the  performance  of  his
           known duties in that he was not prepared for shift change and did
           not have his kitchen up to sanitation standards.  He received  an
           LOR dated 31 August 1988

        c. On or about  31  August  1988,  he  failed  to  go  at  the  time
           prescribed to his  appointed  place  of  duty.   He  received  an
           Article 15, and punishment consisted of a reduction to the  grade
           of Airman, suspended until 11 March 1989, and 30 consecutive days
           correctional custody, later remitted to 18 consecutive days

        d. On or about 13 October 1988,  he  willfully  disobeyed  a  direct
           order not to drive an automobile on Minot AFB.   He  received  an
           Article 15, and punishment consisted of a reduction to the  grade
           of Airman Basic

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 28 October 1988, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  indicated  he
intended to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  however,  they  are  not
contained in his master personnel records.

A legal review was conducted on 2 November 1988, in which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended applicant be discharged for misconduct with  a  general
discharge characterization,  and  denial  of  probation  and  rehabilitation
since he had failed to respond to past rehabilitative efforts.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

       4 Feb 1988                       8
       4 Feb 1987                            7

His records reflect he is entitled to wear  the  Air  Force  Overseas  Short
Tour Ribbon, Air Force Training  Ribbon,  and  Air  Force  Outstanding  Unit
Award.

Applicant was discharged on 17 November 1988 in the grade  of  Airman  Basic
(E-1),  with  an  under  honorable  conditions   (general)   discharge,   in
accordance  with  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-46,  for  misconduct   –   minor
disciplinary infractions.  Probation and rehabilitation was considered,  but
not offered.  He served a total of 2  years,  9  months,  and  13  days  net
active service.

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 5-46, further stated a pattern of misconduct consisting solely  of
minor disciplinary infractions in the current  enlistment  makes  an  airman
subject to discharge.  The infractions contemplated under this  section  may
involve failure to comply with nonpunitive  regulations  or  minor  offenses
under the UCMJ, and that infractions of this type  result,  as  a  rule,  in
informal (reduced to writing) or formal counselings,  LORs,  or  Article  15
nonjudicial punishments.

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 13 June 2007 for review  and  comment  within  30  days.
Additionally, applicant was given a  chance  on  13  June  2007  to  provide
information within 30 days pertaining to his activities  since  leaving  the
service.  Applicant responded by  providing  a  letter  from  the  Cathedral
Parish of St. Columba, dated 27 June 2007.   Applicant’s  complete  response
is at Exhibit F.

A copy of the FBI, Clarksburg, WV, Report of Investigation was forwarded  to
the applicant on 13 June 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no
impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  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 characterization
of the discharge was 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 available evidence related to post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that
clemency is warranted. Applicant has not provided  sufficient  information
of post-service activities and accomplishments for  us  to  conclude  that
applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which caused  the  discharge.
Should  applicant  provide   statements   from   community   leaders   and
acquaintances attesting to applicant's 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-2007-01469
in Executive Session on 24 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
                       Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, US DOJ FBI, dated 24 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Cathedral Parish of St. Columba, dated
                27 Jun 07.
    Exhibit G.  AFR 39-10 Extract, dated 1 Apr 88.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair