RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02058
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He reenlisted in the Air Force 1983 and was stationed at Minot AB.  He changed career fields from security policeman to Disaster Preparedness.  He states that he was the main instructor for chemical weapons defense, taught over 25,000 personnel in two years, and was the NCOIC of equipment.  He also participated in off-base activities (Big Brothers and a Canine Demo Team).  He indicates that his career was going along fine until 1986 when his supervisor started harassing him.  He went to social actions and filed a complaint and was told his complaint was confidential.  Within 24 hours his supervisor was aware of his complaint and his situation worsened.  He contacted his congressman’s office and was harassed by his first sergeant who indicated that he was a disgrace to his unit because he went to his congressman.

He states that he served his country and would do it again today without hesitation and would gladly give his life for his country.  He is asking for justice to be done.  He has seen airman with drug charges receive an honorable discharge. 

He states that in the last 15 years he has held a job in security and received a degree in culinary arts and is looking forward to a career as a police dispatcher.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, character references, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of sergeant, having reenlisted on 18 February 1983 for a period of six (6) years.

The applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for unsatisfactory performance.  The specific reasons follow:

	On or about September 1985 to 12 November 1985, you failed to bring your dress and appearance in compliance with AFR 35-10 after receiving verbal suggestions and warnings to do so, as evidenced by a Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration (AF Form 418, Vacation of NCO Status) dated 12 November 1985.

	During January 1986, your dress and appearance did not comply with AFR 35-10 in that the fatigue uniform you were wearing was thoroughly wrinkled, had the chevrons on crooked, and displayed the wrong patch (USAFE patch instead of the required SAC patch), as evidenced by a letter of reprimand dated 17 January 1986.

	On or about 28 May 1986, you failed to properly maintain specialized team training records, as it was your duty to do so, as evidenced by a letter of reprimand dated 30 May 1986.

	On or about 7 July 1986, you failed to properly complete a physical inventory of equipment, as it was your duty to do, as evidenced by Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (Article 15) dated 23 July 1986.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that several attempts were made to encourage the applicant to bring his duty performance, financial responsibility and personal appearance up to standards through counseling, reprimands, establishment of unfavorable information file and placement on the control roster.  All efforts had proved fruitless as recorded by his disciplinary actions.  He did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant continued to fail to meet Air Force standards for duty performance, financial responsibility, and personal appearance.  

On 11 September 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate indicated that either an honorable or a general discharge were authorized for unsatisfactory performance under paragraph 5-26, AFR 39-10.  The commander recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge and the file was adequate to support such a characterization.

Applicant was discharged on 25 September 1986, in the grade of senior airman with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Section E, Paragraph 5-26, Unsatisfactory Performance.  He served a total of 3 years, 7 months, and 8 days on his last enlistment and 7 years, 7 months and 14 days of total active military service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated 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.  

After reviewing the applicant’s case, it was determined he did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response, with attachments, that 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 probable error or injustice.  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 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.

4.	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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02058 in Executive Session on 10 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 July 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 July 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.

					   Panel Chair