RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01420
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                             COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was treated unfairly and was discharged for unreasonable and  non-factual
circumstances.

In support of the request, the applicant provides a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty, and one page of his Discharge Notification letter.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Feb 88, for  a  period
of four years, and served as a Law Enforcement Specialist.

On 23 Mar 89, he was notified of his commander's  intent  to  recommend  him
for  discharge  for  Misconduct-Pattern   Discreditable   Involvement   with
Military  or  Civil  Authorities,  under  the  provisions  of   AFR   39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen.

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

        a. Correctional Custody Recommendation Letter, dated 20 Mar 89,  for
           failure to conform to the required rules  and  standards  of  the
           Correctional Custody Facility.


        b. Article 15, dated 21 Feb 89, for willfully  disobeying  a  lawful
           order from a superior non-commissioned officer.


        c. Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 29 Nov  88,  for  operating  his
           private vehicle at an excessive speed on base.


        d. LOR, dated 26 Oct 88, for yelling and making obscene noises  over
           the Public Address  (PA)  system  of  his  patrol  vehicle  while
           performing law enforcement patrol duties.


        e. LOR, dated 26 Oct 88,  for  conducting  personal  business  while
           performing law enforcement patrol duties.


        f. LOR, dated 6 Sep 88, for failure to go at the time prescribed  to
           a scheduled appointment.

A legal review was conducted  on  29  Mar  89,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate  recommended  that  he  be  separated  with  a  general   discharge
characterization  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge
authority approved the discharge on  31  Mar  89.   On  4  Apr  89,  he  was
discharged in the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)  for  Misconduct  –  Pattern
Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities,  IAW  AFR  39-
10, paragraph 5—47a.

He  was  separated  with  a  general  discharge  characterization,   and   a
reenlistment eligibility code of 2B, “Separated  with  a  General  or  UOTHC
Discharge”, which bars immediate reenlistment.   He  served  a  total  of  1
year, 1 month, and 12 days active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an  Investigation  Report  pertaining  to
the applicant, which 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.   We  find  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 the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at  the
time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.  The only other basis  upon  which  to  upgrade  his
discharge would be clemency.  However, we have  considered  the  applicant’s
overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge  and
the evidence related to his  post-service  activities  and  accomplishments.
On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

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-2008-01420
in Executive Session on 29 Oct 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Patricia r. Collins, Member
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered under  Docket  Number  BC-
2008-01420:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Response, dated 6 May 08.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair