RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01854
                                             INDEX CODE:  106.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 December 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although he had a DUI in Clovis, NM, the charges  were  dismissed,  yet  the
Air Force still wanted to punish him.

In prior years, he had been awarded the Good  Conduct  Medal  with  two  Oak
Leaf Clusters, the Air Force Longevity Service  Ribbon  with  two  Oak  Leaf
Clusters, the National  Defense  Service  Medal,  had  served  14  years  of
honorary service, and feels this one mistake was unjust.

He was not aware until now that he could get his discharge upgraded.  He  is
60 years old and wants a clean military record.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August 1966,  and
was honorably released from  active  duty  and  transferred  to  the  United
States Air Force Reserve on  4  August  1970.   He  again  enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force on 13 April 1971,  and  served  continuously  until  being
honorably discharged on 20 September 1979.  He once  more  enlisted  in  the
Regular  Air  Force  on  14  May  1982,  and  was  serving  as  an  aircraft
maintenance technician when discharged.

On 18 July 1984,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  for  a
pattern of misconduct.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. On 19 December 1982, he was issued a traffic citation  on  Clovis
           AFB, NM, for driving 40 MPH in a 30 MPH zone

        b.  On  31  December  1982,  he  uttered  a  worthless   financially
           negotiable instrument to the NCO Club in the sum of  $25.00,  for
           which he received a Record of Individual Counseling

        c. On 11 February 1983, he was advised  in  writing  concerning  the
           speed limit on all courts and loops in base housing

        d. On 19 February 1983, he was apprehended  for  driving  under  the
           influence, refusing to submit to chemical testing, and  knowingly
           operating a defective vehicle, for which he received  an  Article
           15.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of  Sergeant,
           suspended until 4 October 1983, forfeiture of  $75.00  per  month
           for two months, and seven consecutive days of extra duty

        e. On 14 April 1983, he  failed  to  show  for  a  Group  Counseling
           Session at Social Actions

        f. On 17 April 1983, he was apprehended  by  civil  authorities  for
           protective custody due to his intoxicated state and the  fact  he
           was walking in the middle of the road, for which  he  received  a
           Letter of Reprimand, dated 3 May 1983

        g. On 20  September  1983,  he  received  a  letter  concerning  the
           appearance  of  his  base  housing   unit;   the   grass   needed
           mowing/trimming, and backyard appearance

        h. On 17 October 1983, a  Letter  of  Indebtedness  for  $47.00  was
           received

        i. On 3  June  1984,  he  was  apprehended  for  driving  under  the
           influence in Clovis, NM,  for  which  he  received  a  Letter  of
           Reprimand, dated 5 June 1984

        j. On 3 July  1984,  he  declined  to  participate  in  the  Alcohol
           Rehabilitation Program

The commander advised applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
present his case to an administrative discharge  board,  be  represented  by
legal counsel at a board hearing, submit statements in  his  own  behalf  in
addition to, or in lieu of the board hearing,  or  waive  the  above  rights
after consulting with counsel.

On 18  July  1984,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  offered  a
conditional  waiver  of  his  rights  associated  with   an   administrative
discharge board,  contingent  on  his  receiving  no  less  than  a  general
discharge under honorable conditions.

A legal review was conducted on 30 July  1984,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate noted that applicant had offered a conditional waiver of his  board
hearing contingent on his receiving a general  discharge.   They  found  the
case to be legally sufficient,  the  initiating  commander’s  recommendation
for  a   general   discharge   appropriate,   the   initiating   commander’s
determination that applicant was not a desirable candidate for P&  R  to  be
correct, and  recommended  the  case  be  forwarded  to  12 AF  for  further
processing.

On 17 August 1984, 12 AF/JA found the case file to be complete and  correct.
 On that same date, 12 AF/CV directed that applicant be discharged due to  a
pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline,  and  issued
a general discharge.  12 AF/CV also noted that the service  characterization
was appropriate because of applicant’s 14 years of satisfactory service.

A resume of applicant's last 10 performance reports follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      17 Jul 1984                       2
      29 Dec 1983                       8
      29 Dec 1982                       8
       4 Jan 1979                       6 (referral)
      15 Jun 1978                            9
      14 Oct 1977                            9
      27 Feb 1977                            8
      27 Feb 1976                            9 (firewall)
      27 Feb 1975                            9
      21 Jul 1974                            9

Applicant’s records indicate he is entitled  to  wear  the  Air  Force  Good
Conduct Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air  Force  Longevity  Service
Ribbon with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service  Medal,  and
the Air Force Outstanding  Unit  Award  with  one  Oak  Leaf  Cluster.   His
records also indicate he was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal  on  16
May 1979, 4 August 1983, and 18 October 1983.

On 28 August 1984, applicant was discharged in the grade of  Staff  Sergeant
(E-5), with an under honorable conditions discharge, in accordance with  AFR
39-10, paragraph 5-47, misconduct –  pattern  of  discreditable  involvement
with military or civil authorities.   He  served  a  total  of  2  years,  3
months, and 15 days of net active service during his  last  enlistment,  and
12 years, 5 months, and 9 days net active service in previous enlistments.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis  of  the  data  furnished,  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (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 offenses 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 5-47, further stated that a pattern  of  misconduct  in
the current enlistment makes an airman subject to discharge.   Discreditable
involvement with military or civil authorities included acts for  which  the
member was, or might have been, punished under the UCMJ, and could  be  part
of the pattern.  They could be cited to show  a  pattern  of  misconduct  if
they  did  not  include  conviction  by  civilian  authorities,  or   action
tantamount to a finding  of  guilty  when  a  punitive  discharge  would  be
authorized for the same or closely related offense under  the  MCM,  or  the
sentence by civilian authorities included confinement for 6 months or  more.
 Conduct prejudicial to good order and  discipline  included  conduct  of  a
nature that tends  to  disrupt  order,  discipline,  or  morale  within  the
military community.  It also included conduct of  a  nature  that  tends  to
bring discredit on the Air Force in the view of the civilian  community,  to
include dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

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.  Thus, by choosing to offer  a  conditional
waiver of his rights associated  with  an  administrative  discharge  board,
contingent  on  his  receiving  no  less  than  a  general  discharge  under
honorable conditions,  it  appears  he  was  aware  of  the  possibility  of
receiving a general discharge.   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 July 2007, for review  and  comment  within  30  days.
Additionally, applicant was given  a  chance  on  9  July  2007  to  provide
information within 30 days pertaining to his activities  since  leaving  the
service.

Applicant responded via an undated letter in which he stated that  while  he
can’t say that he has become a pillar of the  community  in  these  past  20
plus years, he has worked hard, has lived an every day-to-day life, and  has
never been in trouble with the law; not even a traffic ticket.

He stated that over one half of his 14 plus years  in  the  Air  Force  were
during the war years, when people were needed and could do no wrong.   After
the war was over and they were no longer needed, new policies were put  into
place to get rid of people in order  to  avoid  having  to  pay  retirement;
hence, the “fat boy” program.  He has always had a problem with  his  weight
and still does today.  This wasn’t a problem  during  the  war,  but  became
one, and they would deny reenlistment for this reason  and  just  about  any
other reason to keep people close to retirement from getting their 20  years
in.

Although he did get a DUI in Clovis, NM, the charges were  dropped  and  are
not on his record, yet the Air Force insisted on  persecuting  him  on-base,
took away his on-base driving privileges, and made him attend their  on-base
DUI program.  He was told by his first sergeant that his reenlistment  would
probably be denied, so he took a discharge.  That was  a  bad  year  in  his
life as he  was  having  marital  problems  and  was  seeing  an  Air  Force
“shrink”, but he  submits  that  had  these  problems  arisen  a  few  years
earlier, the Air Force would have helped him get through them, and he  would
have gotten through them and retired.

During his 14.5 years, his record was  unblemished  and  throughout  all  of
these years of faithful service, he had one lapse of good judgment  and  has
to pay for it the rest of his life.  He feels he has paid for  his  sin  and
been humiliated long enough, and appeals that his many years of  dedication,
and the best years of his life, be considered and he  be  forgiven  for  his
one lapse of good judgment.

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.  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.  By choosing to offer a
conditional  waiver  of  his  rights  associated  with  an  administrative
discharge board, contingent on  his  receiving  no  less  than  a  general
discharge under honorable conditions, it  appears  he  was  aware  of  the
possibility of receiving a general  discharge.   We  conclude,  therefore,
that the discharge proceedings were proper  and  characterization  of  the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances, and the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  .

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.  Although applicant alleges his  record  was  unblemished
and throughout all of his years of faithful service he had  one  lapse  of
good judgment, his record reflects numerous  incidents  of  misconduct  to
include financial  irresponsibility,  failure  to  go,  two  incidents  of
driving under the influence, one incident of being  apprehended  by  civil
authorities due to his intoxicated state, and declining to participate  in
the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.  Based on the evidence of  record,  we
cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01854
in Executive Session on 15 August 2007, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:



                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                       Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report, dated 20 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jul 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit G.  AFR 39-10 Extracts, dated 1 Oct 82.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair