RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02312
		
	 	COUNSEL:  NJ VET AFFAIRS

	 	HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was immature at the time of his discharge, and has since grown up to be a more responsible adult.

He is currently in a nursing home with severe multiple sclerosis and his medical problems have delayed his ability to request his discharge be upgraded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 October 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.  

The applicant was notified by his commander on 29 November 1983, of his intent to initiate administrative discharge against him for minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander based his recommendaton on the following:

	a.	The applicant was disrespectful to the 831st Air Division Commander on 19 October 1982, in that he did not render proper military courtesies when he was stopped for speeding as evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 17 November 1982.

	b.	He was derelict in the performance of his duties on two occasions as evidenced by an LOR, dated 8 December 1982, and an Article 15, dated 21 October 1983.

	c.	He was late for work on three occasions.

	d.	On 2 April 1983, he allowed an individual not assigned to the support section to receive a composite tool kit for turn-in.

	e.	He failed to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions, as evidenced by an LOR, dated 11 May 1983.

	f.	On 31 August 1983, he was in violation of a direct order.

After consulting with legal counsel, he waived his right to present statements on his own behalf and requested discharge.

The discharge authority approved the discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 5 January 1984, he was discharged under the provision of AFR 39-10 (Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant deeply regrets his actions as a young, immature man and has lived a good life since his discharge.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the events that precipitated the discharge, and limited evidence related to his 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 Docket Number 02-02312 in Executive Session on 12 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, NJ Veterans Affairs, dated 25 Sep 02.