RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02989
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.    His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, be corrected to reflect no lost time rather than four days  lost
time.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received an honorable discharge.  He did not  have  any
lost time from 17 Jan 81 through 21 Jan 81

In support of his application the applicant provided a copy of DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  excerpts
from his military personnel records, and a copy of his  Department  of
Veterans Affairs, Statement of the Case.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
21 Feb 80, for a term of 4 years.

On 12 Oct 81, his commander notified him he  was  recommending  he  be
discharged from the Air Force  for  misconduct-fraudulent  enlistment.
The basis for the commander’s recommendation was  that  he  signed  an
enlistment document stating he had no previous military service on  21
Feb 80, when he had served on active duty in the  United  States  Army
from 26 Mar 79 to 26 Jul 79, and he
signed an enlistment document indicating he had never been treated for
mental illness and had never been a patient in any type of hospital.

He had been treated for mental illness and a  patient  in  a  hospital
prior to entering the United States Army and treated  during  much  of
his active duty time in the Army.

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge,  and  after
consulting with counsel he offered a conditional waiver of his  rights
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing,  contingent
upon receipt of no less than an honorable discharge.

On 5 Nov 81, his conditional waiver request was  disapproved.   On  13
Nov 81, he waived his rights  associated  with  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge board and to submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.

The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found  to
be legally sufficient to  support  discharge  and  recommended  he  be
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The discharge authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  that
applicant be discharged with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  Applicant was separated on 20 Nov 81, under the provisions
of AFR 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability,  Misconduct,  Resignation,
or Request for Discharge for the Good of the  Service  and  Procedures
for the Rehabilitation Program, for (misconduct-fraudulent enlistment)
with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   Since  his
enlistment was considered fraudulent, his total active service was non-
creditable.

On 1 May 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant
request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions)  discharge
to honorable.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 16 Jan 09, that on the basis of the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  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.  The discharge 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, nor did he provide any facts warranting a  change  to  his
character of service or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided documentation reflecting that he is an ordained
minister  and  is  active  in  his  community.    He   also   provides
documentation from the local police department stating  that  he  does
not have a traffic or criminal record.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 discharge appears to  be  in
compliance with the governing regulation, and we find no  evidence  to
indicate his discharge characterization or  separation  from  the  Air
Force was inappropriate.  In regards to his request that his  DD  Form
214 be corrected to reflect he had no lost time, we note the  evidence
of record show  he  was  absent  without  leave  from  17-21  Jan  81.
Therefore, his record correctly reflects his  lost  time  during  this
period.  Further, we find no evidence of error in this case and  after
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he  has
suffered from an error or injustice.  Therefore, based on the evidence
of record, we find no basis upon  which  to  favorably  consider  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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02989 in Executive Session on 23 Jun 09, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Response.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Sep 08, w/atchs.





      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair