RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00614
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED 

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to 
honorable, his narrative reason for separation be changed, and 
his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him 
to enlist into the Army.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ability to serve was impaired due to his youth and 
immaturity.  He has combat time and received decorations and 
awards.  He has volunteered for the Special Olympics and has 
done his best to be a model citizen since his discharge.  Under 
the current standards he could be allowed to reenlist into the 
Army.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a character 
reference email.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman 
basic on 23 Aug 89, for a term of four years.  On 9 Oct 91, the 
applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending he 
be discharged from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct.  
The commander recommended he receive a general (under other than 
honorable conditions) discharge.

The bases for the commander’s recommendation were that:

		a.  On 20 Jun 90, he received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR), for issuing nine worthless checks and thereafter failed 
to maintain sufficient funds in his checking account.

		b.  On 26 Jul 90, he received an LOR for failure to obey 
a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer in the course 
of his duties when he did not remain on standby, but instead 
became intoxicated and subsequently incapacitated for duty.

		c.  On 17 Jan 91, he received an LOR, for failure to 
maintain his dormitory room to dorm standards.

		d.  On 30 Jan 91, he received an LOR, for dereliction in 
the performance of his duties by not remaining attentive on his 
post, as it was his duty to do.

		e. On 14 May 91, he received an LOR, for failure to go to 
his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed when he 
reported late for his duties on 11,12,13,and 14 Feb 91.

		f. On 14 May 91, he received a LOR for not replacing his 
AF Form 1199 as ordered, in violation of Article 92 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Other derogatory information which was used in determining the 
characterization of discharge was that on 30 Jul 91, he received 
an Article 15 for being found sleeping while posted as a 
sentinel at V-2 of the MAC ramp.  He was reduced to airman, 
received 30 days correctional custody and forfeited $100 per 
month for two months.  On or about 21 Aug 91, he failed to 
progress and meet the standards of correctional custody and was 
removed from correctional custody.  

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, and 
after consulting with counsel, waived his rights to submit 
statements in his own behalf.

The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and 
found to be legally sufficient to support discharge.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed he 
be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  He was 
separated on 12 Nov 91, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, (misconduct-pattern of 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline) and received a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge with an RE code 
of 2B “Separated with a general or under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.”  He served 2 years, 2 months and 
22 days of total active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 28 May 08, that on 
the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an 
arrest record.  (Exhibit C)

________________________________________________________________
_



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states that based upon the 
documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge 
processing. 

The DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states, the RE code of 2B 
is correct for this type of discharge.  They found no evidence 
of error or injustice and the applicant did not submit any 
evidence. 

The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 Mar 08, for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  After careful 
consideration of the available evidence, the Board found no 
indication the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge 
were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulations at the time, or that the actions taken against him 
were unjust.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant 
upgrade of the discharge on the basis of clemency.  We have 
considered applicant's overall quality of service and the 
offenses leading to his separation.  However, based on the 
evidence of record and in the absence of documentation 
pertaining to his post-service accomplishments, we cannot 
conclude that clemency is warranted.  In view of the above, we 
cannot 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-
2008-00614 in Executive Session on 10 Jul 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, 2 Feb 08, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Negative Response, dated 28 May 08.
	Exhibit D.	Memo, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Mar 08.
	Exhibit E.	Memo, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Mar 08.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 08.
	Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 08, w/atch.



	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
	Panel Chair