RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01306
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant provided no comments.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) and two letters of recommendation from his current place of employment (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 17 Oct 80 for a period of four years.

On 18 Nov 82, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.  He received a general discharge on 15 Dec 82 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).  He had completed a total of 2 years, 1 month and 29 days and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 3 Aug 01, that, on the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, indicated that the applicant had accumulated 3 Letters of Indebtedness, 2 Letters of Reprimand, 3 Records of Counseling and 1 Article 15, with a punishment consisting of a $50 fine, 20 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction in grade to airman, which was subsequently vacated.  DPPRS stated that, based upon the documentation in the file, applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  DPPRS therefore recommended the applicant’s request be denied.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29 Jun 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and we find the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct (pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).  Furthermore, we found no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request for upgrade of his discharge.

4.  We have noted the information provided by the applicant pertaining to his post-service activities and do not find it sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge based on clemency.  Our finding in this regard is based on the limited scope of the information provided and the multiplicity of the infractions the applicant committed against the good order and discipline of the service.
_________________________________________________________________

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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Jun 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 01.

                                   Panel Chair