RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03207
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the contested time period he was young and arrogant.   The  character
of discharge he received  was  inappropriate.   He  cannot  receive  certain
services because of his discharge.  He is a homeless veteran  in  dire  need
of help.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  15  December  1983  in  the
grade of airman basic.  On 24 September 1985, applicant was notified by  his
commander of her intent to recommend that he  be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force under the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-46.   The  specific
reasons follow:

            a.  On 19 July 1984, he failed to go at the time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty.  For this offense he was counseled.

            b.  On 7 October  1984,  he  wrongfully  assaulted  two  airmen,
committed a breach of the peace, and wrongfully destroyed private  property.
  For  these  offenses  he  was  punished  pursuant  to  Article  15,  UCMJ,
consisting of a reduction to the  grade  of  airman  basic  and  ordered  to
perform 30 days correctional custody.

            c.  Between 9 November 1984 and 10 December 1984, he  uttered  a
check to the Army  and  Air  Force  Exchange  Service  and  then  failed  to
maintain sufficient funds within his account to make payment  in  full  when
the check was presented for payment.  For this offense he was counseled.

            d.  On 3 March 1985, he failed to go at the time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty for which he was reprimanded.

            e.  On 5 June 1985, he wrongfully  operated  a  privately  owned
motor vehicle without possessing a valid U.S. Forces driver’s  license,  and
failed  to  operate  that  vehicle  in  a  safe  manner  which  resulted  in
substantial property damage.  For these offenses, he was reprimanded.

            f.  On 6 June 1985, he wrongfully solicited  another  person  to
commit an  offense,  and  attempted  to  use  his  position  as  a  security
policeman for his own personal gain.  For this offense he was reprimanded.

            g.  On 25 July 1985, he wrongfully engaged in  a  mutual  affray
with another airman.  During that affray, he apparently lost his temper  and
placed the airman in a head lock which resulted in that airman sustaining  a
cracked windpipe.  For this offense he received a reprimand.

            h.  On or about 6 September 1985, he  reported  for  duty  as  a
security  policeman  while  under  the  influence  of  intoxicants  and  had
accepted a weapon from the  base  armory  despite  having  consumed  alcohol
during the eight hours immediately preceding his tour of duty.  For this  he
was reprimanded.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification.  After consulting with counsel  applicant  elected  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.  In a legal  review  of  the  case  file,  the
staff judge advocate found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and  recommended
discharge.  On 21 October 1985, the discharge authority concurred  with  the
recommendations and directed discharge with  a  general  discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on 29 October  1985.
 He served 1 year, 10 months and 15 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an  Investigative  Report  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

On 18 January 2008, the applicant was provided the  opportunity  to  respond
to the Investigative Report and to provide documentation pertaining  to  his
post-service activities, within 30 days (Exhibit D).  On 25  February  2008,
the documentation was returned as undeliverable.

_________________________________________________________________


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 injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  find  no
evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice  that  occurred  in   the   discharge
processing.  Based on the available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the  discharge
regulation  and  within  the  commander’s  discretionary   authority.    The
applicant has provided no evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  the
characterization of the service  was  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulation, unduly harsh,  or  disproportionate  to  the  offenses
committed.   We  considered  upgrading  the  discharge  based  on  clemency;
however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient  to  compel  us
to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

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(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 31 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James G. Neighbors, Member
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2007-03207 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 January 2008.





                 WAYNE R. GRACIE
                 Panel Chair