RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00445
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06,
                                               126.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 20  August  2007,  be  removed  from  his
records.

His discharge characterization be changed so he can  serve  his  country  in
the United States Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although he did have some minor infractions during Basic  Military  Training
(BMT), he feels he was treated unfairly.  He  graduated  with  his  squadron
and at no time was he recommended to be recycled.

His biggest challenge was interacting with his Element Leader who  told  him
he did not like him.  This had a great deal to  do  with  his  difficulties,
and the Element Leader went  out  of  his  way  to  write  critical  reports
concerning his performance.

During his 5th week of BMT, he was ordered on three  consecutive  nights  to
perform double shifts of entry control duty, despite a Training  Instruction
stating entry controllers cannot work back-to-back shifts.   His  exhaustion
in his 5th week directly contributed to his behavior.

He  takes  full  responsibility  for  reporting  to  his  dorm   after   his
restriction time on 16 August 2007.  He was having dinner with  his  parents
prior to his graduation, and they were delayed by a traffic jam caused by  a
severe storm.

He was incorrectly accused of again returning late to his dorm on  20 August
2007.  He returned to the dorm within his restriction time  but  was  locked
out for approximately 5 hours.  He signed  the  Command  Quarters  (CQ)  log
when he returned and waited in the CQ for his flight to  return.   When  his
flight eventually returned, it was assumed he was just then returning.
Had the matter been properly investigated, the video cameras and
the airmen staffing the CQ desk would have revealed what really happened.

The LOR accuses him of leaving the base without authorization  and  this  is
simply not true as he was with several other airmen at the base mini-mall.

Although he  signed  all  the  documents  and  relinquished  his  rights  to
counsel, he felt he was under pressure to do so  and  did  not  realize  the
full implications or the meaning of what he was signing.   Additionally,  he
was not able to call  his  family  for  support  and  counsel.   His  father
attempted to reach the Base Chaplain to find out what was going on, but  the
Chaplain’s response was a week too late.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of  a  personal  statement,
an LOR, dated 20 August 2007, excerpts from his Basic Training  Record,  his
commander’s recommended discharge Notification Memorandum, dated  28  August
2007, and his DD Form 214.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air  Force  on  2  July  2007,  and  while
attending BMT, was given an LOR for, on or about 19 August  2007,  willfully
taking an illegal, unauthorized town-pass and denying  having  knowledge  of
the restriction when, in fact, he  later  confessed  to  knowing  about  the
restriction.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  LOR  and,  on  23
August 2007, chose not to submit  written  communications/documents  in  his
own behalf.

On 28 August 2007, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an entry level separation for unsatisfactory  entry  level
performance or conduct.  The commander stated the reasons for  the  proposed
discharge  were  the  applicant’s  failure  to   adapt   to   the   military
environment, his reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet  Air  Force
standards of conduct and duty performance, his lack of self-discipline,  and
the LOR, dated 20 August 2007.  The commander advised the applicant  of  his
rights, and he subsequently waived his right to consult counsel  and  submit
statements  in  his  own  behalf.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the
separation and directed the applicant be separated with  an  uncharacterized
entry-level separation without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged on 30 August  2007,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1), with an uncharacterized entry level separation.   He  completed
a total of 1 month and 29 days of net active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  have  the  LOR
removed from his records as it  was  administered  in  accordance  with  Air
Force Instruction 36-2907.

The use of  the  LOR  by  commanders  and  supervisors  is  an  exercise  of
supervisory authority and responsibility.  Upon receipt, an  individual  has
3 duty  days  to  submit  rebuttal  documents  for  consideration   by   the
initiator, and the applicant chose not to do so.  Although he  has  provided
explanations in this application as to why he feels the LOR  was  unjust  or
in error, he has failed to provide evidence to support his claims.

The AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to  change  his
service characterization.  Based on the documentation on file in the  master
personnel records, the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge  authority.   Although  the  applicant  disputes
portions of the evidence which was used for  the  basis  of  his  discharge,
there are no substantiated facts or any evidence of an  error  or  injustice
that occurred during his discharge processing.

Airmen   are   given   entry   level   separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is  initiated  in  the  first  180 days  of
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He did not fight the allegations against him as he had just  graduated  from
BMT, his head was spinning due to the allegations against him, and  he  felt
he was under pressure from high-ranking officers.  He  never  took  an  off-
base pass since he had restricted base liberties, and  he  returned  to  his
dorm as instructed.

He asks the Board to compare the statements  made  in  his  LOR  with  those
contained in his Lackland AFB (LAFB) Form 105a, dated 19 August  2007.   The
LOR states he took an illegal, unauthorized town-pass,  a  crime  punishable
by confinement, while the LAFB 105a states he  was  late  coming  back  from
base liberties.  Although he signed these documents, he  had  no  idea  what
the implications were or what he was signing.

He cannot prove he was not late in  returning  from  base  liberties  on  19
August 2007, as he has been unable to locate the other airmen with  whom  he
spent the time and the Air Force  does  not  retain  daily  reports  or  the
videos at the CQ.  If these reports and videos  still  existed,  they  would
prove he returned on-time and he would be glad to take a lie  detector  test
to prove his case.

Although he realizes it will be difficult to re-enter  the  Air  Force,  the
Navy has stated  they  will  consider  him  if  he  can  get  his  discharge
classification changed.

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

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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  agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  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 issue(s) 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  Docket  Number  BC-2008-00445
in Executive Session on 21 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 28 Feb 08.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Mar 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Apr 08, w/atchs.




                                   B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair