RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02522
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was due to his criminal conviction.  As a result of a malfunction on a pay phone, he was able to make long distance telephone calls without being charged.  He never believed he was committing a criminal act but was charged with theft of telephone services.  The Court took his case under advisement for two years; and after payment of restitution and court costs the case was dismissed.  He recently learned that he has no criminal conviction as a result of the dismissal.  He was only 19 years of age at the time, and did not realize the seriousness of his actions.  He believes that the court took into account his age, the nature of the alleged crime, and his clean record in deferring sentencing and dismissing his case.  He sincerely hopes that the Board will take these same conditions into consideration while deciding his case.  He believes he served his country honorably and his job performance was not a problem.  

His post-service activities as a family man, and a partner in a construction company demonstrate his excellent reputation for honesty and integrity.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a supportive statement and a copy of his criminal report from North Dakota.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a period of 4 years.  During this period of service, he was progressively promoted to airman (E-2).  He received two Airman Performance Reports closing 3 February 1984 and 29 May 1984, in which the overall ratings were 8 and 3 respectively (highest rating a 9).

On 13 September 1983, the commander issued a letter of reprimand to the applicant for speeding, a moving traffic violation.  

On 11 October 1983, the commander issued a letter of reprimand to the applicant for operating a government motor vehicle in a reckless manner.  

On 27 December 1983, the commander issued a letter of reprimand to the applicant for being arrested on a warrant charging him with the theft of services from Northwestern Bell Telephone Company.  He was charged with a Class C felony for $525.12 of unpaid telephone charges and was incarcerated in the Grand Forks County Jail.

On 27 January 1984, the commander issued a letter of admonishment to the applicant for improper backing with his personal motor vehicle resulting in an accident.  

On 28 February 1984, the applicant was notified that the commander was recommending him for a general discharge.  The reason for the discharge was for a civilian conviction.  On 16 March 1984, the discharge authority recommended the general discharge be suspended for 12 months and that the applicant be given an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  On 22 March 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt and accepted the offer of probation and rehabilitation.  

On 16 May 1984, applicant accepted an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana on diverse occasions during the month of April 1984.  For this offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman basic, ordered to forfeit $120 per month for two months and ordered into correctional custody for a period of 30 days; however, the portion of the punishment pertaining to 30 days of correctional custody was suspended.

On 31 May 1984, the commander recommended that the discharge authority vacate the suspended discharge.  On 22 June 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  On 26 June 1984, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 4 months and 23 days, of total active military service.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing.  Based on the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 August 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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 error or injustice.  While it is true that the applicant’s separation document indicates he was discharged because of a civilian conviction, we believe it must be noted that the approved discharge was initially suspended pending his successful completion of a period of probation and rehabilitation.  Less than 60 days after the discharge was suspended, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for wrongful use of marijuana, which is considered a serious act of misconduct.  While the applicant believes his service characterization is harsh, we believe a general discharge (under honorable conditions) was munificient given the information in his discharge case file.  Other than the assertions of the applicant, documentary evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that his discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing directive under which it was effected, that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that the information contained in the discharge case file was factually incorrect.  Applicant’s contentions and supporting statement were duly noted. However, based on the short period of time he served on active duty and the limited evidence provided, in our estimation, the evidence submitted is not of a sufficient quality and quantity to warrant the approval of the requested relief based on clemency.  In view of this fact and in the absence of more expansive evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years after his discharge from the Air Force, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case. 

_________________________________________________________________

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, AFBCMR Docket No. 02-02522, in Executive Session on 6 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 July 2002 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 August 2002.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 August 2002.