RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02221
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 JANUARY 2009

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation be changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was racially motivated.  His first sergeant had  singled  him
out within the  squadron  on  numerous  occasions  with  unwarranted  verbal
reprimands.  He wanted to complete his first tour of duty  and  move  on  to
Officer Training School.  The narrative reason has  a  negative  connotation
about his character.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form  214  and
DD Form 293, Application for  the  Review  of  Discharge.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.  He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  He received  two  Airman
Performance Reports closing 3 June 1980 and 29 January 1980,  in  which  the
overall evaluations were 7, and 9 respectively.

On 20 June 1979,  the  applicant  failed  to  attend  a  scheduled  chemical
urinalysis appointment.  For this incident, he was counseled.

On 20 September 1979, he issued a worthless check to the Holloman  AFB  Main
Exchange.  For this incident, he was counseled.

On 22 April 1980, a  letter  of  indebtedness  was  received  from  Gordon’s
Jewelers indicating his  account  was  in  arrears  of  $109.80.   For  this
incident, he was counseled and on 25 February 1980, he  was  also  issued  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
On 3  April  1980,  a  letter  of  indebtedness  was  received  from  Desert
Cleaners, Holloman AFB.  It was noted to  be  the  second  dishonored  check
issued by the applicant.

On 7 June 1980, he issued  a  worthless  check  to  the  Holloman  AFB  Main
Exchange.  For this incident, he was verbally counseled.

On 13 June 1980, he issued a worthless check in the  amount  of  $100.00  to
Security Bank and Trust, New Mexico.

On 10 July 1980, the applicant loitered on post.  For this incident, he  was
counseled and was issued an LOR.

On 18 July 1980, he issued a  worthless  check  to  the  Holloman  AFB  Main
Exchange.

On 30 July 1980, applicant was  noted  not  to  be  completing  his  upgrade
training promptly.

On  26  August  1980,  the   applicant’s   commander   initiated   discharge
proceedings against him under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12,  Chapter  2,
paragraph 2-4g, for financial irresponsibility.  The applicant was  notified
of his commander’s recommendation and that an honorable discharge was  being
recommended.  He was advised of his rights in the matter.   On  4  September
1980, an evaluation of the case file was conducted.   Following  his  review
of the record and an interview with the applicant,  the  evaluation  officer
recommended an  honorable  discharge  and  stated  that  the  applicant  was
unsuitable for  further  military  service  but  should  be  considered  for
rehabilitation.  The applicant elected  to  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the  discharge  case  file,  the  staff  judge
advocate found it  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with  an  honorable   discharge   without
consideration  for  rehabilitation.   The  applicant   was   discharged   on
17 September  1980  and  was  assigned  narrative  reason   for   separation
“Unsuitable-Financial Irresponsibility.”  He served 1 year, 7 months and  18
days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and  the
applicant did not  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  in  the  discharge
processing.  The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant denies the facts presented.  Applicant  states  although  he  does
not have physical evidence that would show injustices brought upon  him,  he
will pursue  a  formal  civil  hearing  and  will  show  proof  (through  an
investigation) that all accusations noted in  his  master  personnel  record
were fabricated  to  discredit  and  harm  his  reputation.   He  feels  the
information noted is slander which warrants civil action.   The  applicant’s
complete response is at 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant's narrative reason for separation is  erroneous
or unjust.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as  the  basis  for
their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2007-02221
in Executive Session on 12 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
            Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
            Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02221 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jul 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Aug 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Aug 07.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair