RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01341
		INDEX CODE 110.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1984 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was stationed at Rhein-Main AB, Germany, he was involved in helping to identify and process the 241 Marines killed in the suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun 81 and was assigned to McChord AFB, WA as a unit apprentice aircraft mechanic. During the period in question, he was an airman first class serving with the 435th Field Maintenance Squadron at Rhein-Main AB, Germany as a unit flight line support equipment apprentice. His performance reports from 17 Jun 81 through 18 Nov 83 reflect overall ratings of 9, 7 and 7.

On 12 Aug 83 he was administered an Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 1 Aug 83, i.e., he failed to secure a pintle hook to tow a diesel generator and failed to disconnect the generator power cord from the aircraft before the generator was towed. He made an oral, but not a written, presentation. He was fined $100.00 in pay and received a suspended reduction to airman until 6 Feb 84.

On 3 Nov 83, he was denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal AFGCM.

On 4 Jan 84 he was placed on the Control Roster for the 12 Aug 83 Article 15 and for receiving a performance report with an overall rating of 7.

On 9 Jan 84, he was again denied the AFGCM.

On 24 Jan 84, the suspended reduction was vacated because the applicant drove an automobile without a current operator’s license on 23 Dec 83. He was reduced to the grade of airman with a date of rank (DOR) of 12 Aug 83.  That same day, he received an Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 16 Jan 84. He was found asleep in his dorm room. He was reduced to the grade of airman basic with a DOR of 24 Jan 84 and fined $100.00 in pay. 

On 21 Feb 84, the squadron section commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge with a general characterization for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant waived his right to counsel and to submit statements. The commander subsequently recommended the applicant be discharged without probation and rehabilitation with a general characterization. Legal review on 1 Mar 84 found the case legally sufficient.  On 5 Mar 84, the wing commander ordered the applicant’s general discharge.

The applicant was separated in the grade of airman basic with a general discharge on 3 Mar 84 with 2 years, 8 months and 27 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 May 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. In this regard, the applicant has not shown that his discharge should be upgraded on the basis of error, undue harshness, mitigating circumstances or clemency. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 3 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01341 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.