RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03974
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His reentry code "2B" which denotes "Separated with a general or under-
other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge and narrative reason  for
separation (Misconduct - pattern conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and
discipline) be upgraded to allow his entry into the United States Army.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no injustice in his case, he is only asking for another chance to
fight for his country.  He is no longer the irresponsible  person  he  once
was but a dedicated adult who realizes he made mistakes in his early years.
 The conduct he displayed in the Air Force did not follow him.  He has been
a very productive citizen and has not been in  any  trouble  other  than  a
traffic ticket.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge  from  the
Armed Forces of the  United  States,  letters  of  appreciation,  character
references and documents extracted from his medical and military  personnel
records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  on  22  September  1989.
On 25 September  1992,  he  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a pattern  of  misconduct.
The specific reasons for this action were: 1) he received an Article 15  for
wrongfully  using  provoking  gestures,  by  projecting  his  middle  finger
towards  two  enlisted  personnel.   2)  He  received  an  Article  15   for
possession of marijuana, and the  use  of  marijuana.   3)  He  received  an
Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk. 4) He received a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for failing to attend two mandatory dormitory meetings.   5)
He received an Article 15 for breaking two windows (value $115.00).

On  25  September  1992,  he   acknowledged   receipt   of   the   discharge
notification, his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements on  his
own behalf.  He also acknowledged the action could result in  his  discharge
from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 13 October 1992, he was discharged in the grade  of  airman  basic  with
service characterized as general.  He served a total of 3 years and 22 days
on active duty.

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

On 27 February 2008, a request  for  information  pertaining  to  his  post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant  for  response  within  30
days.  As of this date, no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office.
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states a review of the applicant's  records
revealed the applicant's commander recommended his discharge for a  pattern
of misconduct; specifically, he  received  four  Article  15’s  during  the
period of 15 August 1990 through 24 August 1992.  DPSOA found  no  evidence
of error or injustice nor did the applicant submit  any  evidence  of  any.
The RE code for such a characterization is 2B.  If he is seeking enlistment
with another branch of service, that enlisting component may waive any  Air
Force enlistment bar.

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   The
discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and  directed  a   general
discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.   The  applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustice  that  occurred  in
the discharge process.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the applicant on 15
February 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this
office has received no response (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  The Board finds 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.   The
applicant has not shown the characterization of the discharge was  contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulation, nor has it  been  shown  the
nature of the  discharge  was  unduly  harsh  or  disproportionate  to  the
offenses committed and it appears the reentry code assigned  and  narrative
reason for separation are appropriate and  correct.   Therefore,  we  agree
with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that he has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice in connection with these requests.   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 RECOMMENDS:

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-
03974 in Executive Session on 8 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

              Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
              Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
              Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 December 2007, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 14 March 2008.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 February 2008, w/atch.
      Exhibit  E.   Letter,  AFPC/DPSOA,  dated  10  January  2008,
w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 30 January 2008.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 February 2008.





                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair