RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02253
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 JAN 2009


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His characterization of service be upgraded from  general  (under  honorable
conditions) to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made mistakes during his time in the Air Force due  to  being  young  and
immature.  He has changed his life around  and  hopes  to  pursue  a  better
paying job if his discharge can be upgraded.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 June 1981,  for  a  period
of six years, and served as an  Administrative  Specialist  and  a  Security
Specialist.

On 26 April 1985, he was notified of his  commander's  intent  to  recommend
him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge  for  Misconduct  -
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. Article 15, dated 16 January 1985, stealing vending machine snack
           items


        b. Verbal Counseling, on 8 August 1984, for violation of AFR 35-10


        c. Letter of Counseling, dated 15 July 1984, for violation of AFR 35-
           10


        d. Verbal Counseling, 19 May 1984, for violation of AFR 35-10


        e. Letter of Reprimand, dated  1  May  1984,  while  assigned  as  a
           Security Team Leader, he  was  observed  outside  his  designated
           patrol area


        f. Letter of Reprimand, dated 11 July  1983,  he  was  negligent  in
           attempting to free a government vehicle  from  a  ditch,  causing
           damage to the tire of the vehicle

The commander advised him of his right to consult legal counsel,  and  after
consulting with counsel he waived his rights to submit a  statement  in  his
own behalf.

A legal review was conducted and the staff judge advocate recommended he  be
separated  with   a   general   (under   honorable   conditions)   discharge
characterization without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 22 May 1985, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first  class
(E-3) for Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary  Infractions,  IAW  AFR
39-10, and  paragraph  5-46.   He  was  given  a  general  (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 and 11 months active duty service.

Applicant is entitled to wear the Air  Force  Commendation,  the  Air  Force
Achievement Medal, and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 26 July 2007, 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  the  provisions  of   AFR   39-10,   Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions.  Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly  harsh
or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Criteria  for  the  issuance
of  an  honorable,  general,  or  under  other  than  honorable   conditions
discharge are outlined in AFR 39-10, paragraph  1-18.   (Extracted  copy  of
applicable Regulation is attached as Exhibit D)

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.  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-2007-02253
in Executive Session on 30 August 2007, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                       Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Response, dated 26 Jul 07.
    Exhibit D.  Extracts from AFR 39-10.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair