RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02843

                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL: NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable  and  his  Separation   Program   Designator   (SPD)   code,
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and narrative reason for separation
be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The charges and specifications are fundamentally accurate, but he  was
not aware of the long term impact.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement and
character reference statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Aug 80 for a  period
of four years as an airman basic.

On 15 Oct 82, his commander notified him that he was recommending  him
for discharge from the Air Force under the  provisions  of  Air  Force
Regulation (AFR) 39-10 for Misconduct-minor disciplinary  infractions.
The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 9 Aug 82, he received a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR)  for
failing to report for duty at the appointed place and time.


      b.    On 27 Aug 82, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for
writing a check with sufficient funds to the Base Exchange.

      c.    On 15 Sep 82, he received an Article 15 for failing to  go
to his appointed place of duty.

      d.    On 15 Sep 82, he received an LOC for failing to adequately
support his dependent.

      e.    On 5 Oct 82, he received an  Article  15  for  failing  to
report for duty.

His commander advised him of his  rights  in  this  matter  and  after
consulting with counsel he  elected  to  waive  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 25 Oct 82, the base legal office reviewed the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  separation  and  recommended  discharge
with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 29 Oct 82, the discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed he be discharged with a general discharge  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

He was separated from the Air  Force  on  1  Nov  82  with  a  general
discharge with a RE code of  “2B”  which  denotes  “separated  with  a
general or under other than honorable conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge.”
His narrative reason for separation and SPD code of  JKN  reflects  he
was  separated   for   “Misconduct-pattern   of   minor   disciplinary
infractions."  He served on active duty 2 years, 2 months and 20 days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.  On 11 Dec 07, a copy of the FBI report  was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days,  as  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends the requested relief be  denied.   DPSOA  states
they found no evidence of an error or an injustice and  the  applicant
did not submit any evidence to substantiate his request for  a  change
in his RE code.

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPSOS states
the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based
upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,  DPSOS  believes  his
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was  within
the sound discretion of the discharge
authority.  The applicant has not provided  any  facts  to  warrant  a
change to his discharge, RE code, SPD code  or  narrative  reason  for
separation.

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided  comments
to clarify the circumstances that surrounded the events which led  his
command to issue the disciplinary actions which resulted in him  being
discharged (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden of proof that he has suffered either an error or an  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   issues   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-02843 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 08, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Mary Jane Mitchell, Member
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Investigative Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 Sep 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 2 Oct 07.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 07.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 07.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 11 Dec 07.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair