RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01077
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable based on clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He realizes now the mistakes he made and the immaturity he had while in the Air Force.  He truly regrets the mistakes he made and since being discharged he has tried to correct them.  He is currently employed as a firefighter with a local fire department.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits several documents pertaining to his post service activities.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 August 1987, for a period of four years.

On 8 February 1991, the commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for misconduct.  He recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were that:  (1) On 15 June 1989, applicant, through culpable inefficiency, was derelict in the performance of his duty by failing to remain alert while performing escort duty for which he received an Article 15.  (2) On 30 September 1989, applicant was disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer then known by him to be a superior noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of his office for which applicant received an Article 15.  (3) On 24 April 1990, applicant issued a personal check, #117, which was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds for which he was verbally counseled.  (4) On 25 April 1990, applicant was disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer known by him to be a superior NCO who was then in the execution of his office for which applicant received a Letter of Reprimand.  (5) On 27 May 1990, applicant issued a personal check, #133, which was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds for which he was verbally counseled.  (6) On 31 July 1990 and again on            1 August 1990 and 10 August 1990, applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty for which he received a Letter of Reprimand.  (7) On 1 November 1990, applicant was found in violation of AFR 35-10 for which he received a Letter of Counseling.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  On 8 February 1991, applicant acknowledged receipt of discharge notification.  On 22 February 1991, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case legally sufficient and on 26 February 1991, the discharge authority approved a general discharge, without P&R.

On 1 March 1991, the applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 6 months and 11 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and recommends that the application be denied.  That office states that, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  It is also noted that the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s requested upgrade on 29 October 1991.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 June 2001, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 21 September 2001, a copy of applicant’s FBI Report was forwarded to him requesting his review and comments in conjunction with his application.  

On 1 October 2001, the applicant responded stating that he did not own nor possess a shotgun of any sort.  The charges against him were dropped and cleared.  He states he has made great strides to improve his life since his separation from the Air Force.

A copy of applicant’s response is attached 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 31 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 May 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 01.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Letter, dated 1 Oct 01.

					
					Panel Chair