RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03844
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged unfairly for a couple of very  minor  infractions  because
the military was downsizing.  He was very young and stupid at  the  time  of
his discharge; however, since then, he’s raised two children and has been  a
model citizen.  He is employed as a full-time firefighter/paramedic  and  is
currently testing for a promotion to lieutenant.  He would like to  use  his
military service  for  points  towards  his  promotion;  however,  he  can’t
because his discharge is not characterized as honorable.

In support of his application, the applicant  provides  copies  of  numerous
training completion  certificates  and  a  copy  of  his  Emergency  Medical
Technician (EMT) license.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 November 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 20 in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four  years.
 He was progressively promoted to the rank of airman first  class  (A1C/E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 7 January 1991.  He had  2  months  and
15 days prior active duty service in the United States Marine Corps.

On 14 July 1989, the applicant received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  On  15
August 1989,  he  received  nonjudicial  punishment  for  two  instances  of
wrongful appropriation  of  an  automobile  coupled  with  one  instance  of
unlawful entry  into  a  private  dwelling.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman basic and  30  days  correctional  custody.
That portion of  punishment  having  to  do  with  reduction  in  grade  was
suspended until 14 February  1990  unless  sooner  vacated.   On  7 November
1989, the suspended portion of his nonjudicial punishment having to do  with
reduction in grade was vacated and he was demoted to  AB.   On  11  February
1991, the applicant received an LOR for one instance of assault on a  fellow
airman.

On 11 February 1991, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent
to recommend him for discharge for minor misconduct under the provisions  of
Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Section H, Paragraph 5-46, with a  general
discharge.  On 14 February 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt  of  his
commander’s intent, consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his  own
behalf.  On 22 February 1991, after considering the applicant’s  submission,
his  commander  recommended  the  applicant  be  separated  with  a  general
discharge (under honorable conditions) without probation and  rehabilitation
(P&R).  On 22 February 1991, the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate  found  the
case to be legally sufficient.  On 6 March  1987,  the  discharge  authority
approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be  discharged  under
the provisions of AFR 39-10, Section H, Paragraphs 5-46  and  5-51,  with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge effective 12 March 1991 with a separation code of JKN  (misconduct
– pattern of minor disciplinary  infractions)  and  a  reentry  code  of  2B
(discharged under general or other-than-honorable discharge).  He  served  a
total of two years, six months and seven days on active duty.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis  of  the  data  furnished,  they
were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPSOS  states  the
applicant’s discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation in effect  at  that  time  and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  The applicant has provided  no  facts  warranting
an upgrade to his discharge characterization.

The DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not provide  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case was  erroneous,  his
substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  The character of discharge which  was  issued  at
the time of the applicant’s separation appears to  accurately  reflect  the
circumstances of his separation and we do not find it to  be  in  error  or
unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence  of  evidence  by  the
applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment  in  the  years
since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this  case.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 29 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-03844:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 Feb 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 08.




                                   GREGORY A. PARKER
                                   Panel Chair