RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00157
                                             INDEX CODE:  106.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was subjected to personal attacks on his character which  may  have  gone
as far as being borderline discrimination.   Upgrading  his  discharge  will
clear his name and allow him to join the Army Reserve.

He  had  his  moments  of  rebellious  misgivings  for  which  he   accepted
punishment  and  was  then  judged  as  having  shifted  the  blame  to  his
superiors.  His Airman Performance Report  (APR),  dated  28 December  1984,
commented on his need for remedial education training due  to  his  lack  of
reading skills and problems comprehending instructions.  However,  the  same
report commended him for achieving  above  average  scores  on  his  End-of-
Course (EOC) reviews and the fact that  he  scored  73 percent  on  his  EOC
examination.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of two  VA  Form  21-4138s,
Statement in Support of Claim, a DD Form 293, Application for the Review  of
Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, two letters  from  the
American Legion submitting his application, a  personal  statement,  his  DD
Form 214, his rebuttal to his discharge,  the  reverse  side  of  an  Airman
Performance Report (APR) with comments  and  signatures  dated  28  December
1984, a letter from the  discharge  authority  directing  his  discharge,  a
legal review recommending his discharge, and four  character  references  at
the time of his discharge.  Although he  lists  a  Department  of  the  Army
Review Board Letter, dated 16 November 2007, as being provided, it  was  not
contained in  the  application  he  submitted  to  the  Board.   Applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 28 December 1983, and  served
as an apprentice recreation services specialist until his discharge.

On 8 February 1985, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
recommend him for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. On or about 25 June 1984, 7 August 1984, and  26 September  1984,
           he was counseled concerning  his  wife’s  presence  in  his  duty
           section, and was given a direct order by  the  commander  not  to
           have his wife in his duty section.  On or about 13 November 1984,
           his wife was again in his duty section, for which he  received  a
           letter of Reprimand (LOR).

        b. On divers occasions between 1 August 1984 and  30 November  1984,
           he wrongfully used  a  government  telephone  to  make  personal,
           unauthorized,  long-distance  telephone  calls,  for   which   he
           received an Article 15.  Punishment consisted of a  reduction  to
           the grade of airman basic (E-1), forfeiture  of  $144.00  of  his
           pay, and performance of 14 days extra duty.


        c. On or about 5 December 1984, he reported for work four hours late
           which was the third time he had reported late for work, for which
           he received an LOR.

The commander advised the applicant  of  his  rights,  and,  on  13 February
1985, after consulting with legal counsel, he submitted a statement  in  his
behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 25 February 1985, in which the  staff  judge
advocate noted that the discharge for  minor  disciplinary  infractions  was
clearly  supported  by  the  evidence,  and  recommended  the  applicant  be
separated without probation  and  rehabilitation,  and  he  be  furnished  a
general discharge certificate.

On 28 February 1985, the applicant was discharged in  the  grade  of  airman
basic  (E-1)  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-46,  for
misconduct  –  minor  disciplinary  infractions,  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) service characterization.   He  served  a  total  of  1
year, 2 months, and 1 day of net active service.

The applicant received one  APR  for  the  period  28 December  1983  to  27
December 1984, with an overall rating in Section IV of “4.

On 7 May 1986, the applicant appeared, with counsel,  and  testified  before
the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB),  requesting  that  his  under
honorable  conditions  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable.   The   AFDRB
determined that neither the evidence of record  nor  that  provided  by  the
applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety justifying  a  change  of
his discharge.  They concluded that his discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority, he had been provided  full
administrative due process, and there existed no legal  or  equitable  basis
for upgrade of his discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of  an  Investigation  Report  which  is  at
Exhibit C.  On 29 February 2008, a copy of the FBI report and a request  for
post-service activities were forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and
comment within 30 days.  However, 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.   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.

________________________________________________________________




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-2008-00157
in Executive Session on 16 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                       Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  USDOJ FBI Report, dated 29 Jan 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Feb 08, w/atchs.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair