RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03363
		INDEX NUMBER:  A49.00
	XXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of discharge be changed from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge is unjust.  He is a federal employee and would like his discharge upgraded in order to receive the 5-point preference.  He was discharged under Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Discharge.  An administrative discharge should not result in a general discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 2 Oct 85.  On 3 Jun 87, his squadron commander notified him that he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander also recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.  The reasons for the commander’s actions were:

	  a.  On 22 May 87, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being approximately one hour late for work.

	  b.  On 22 May 87, he received an LOC for leaving his duty section unattended after being told not to do so.

	  c.  On 20 May 87, he was counseled by the Deputy Commander for failing his Career Development Course examination.

	  d.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC for being two hours late to work on 10 May 87.

	  e.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC for violations of AFR   35-10.

	  f.  On 19 May 87, he received an LOC for failure to do his assigned tasks.

	  g.  On 11 May 87, he received a referral Airman Performance Report (APR) with an overall rating of 1.

	  h.  On 20 Feb 87, he received an Article 15 for failure to report for duty.  As a result, he was ordered to undergo 30 days of correctional custody.

	  i.  On 13 Jan 87, he was placed on the Control Roster for substandard duty performance.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of Notification on 3 Jun 87.  The applicant submitted a statement on 18 Jun 87 contesting the recommended general discharge.

On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He also did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  On 1 Jul 87, the Installation Staff Judge Advocate found the case against the applicant legally sufficient and recommended that the Installation Commander approve a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  On 2 Jul 87, the Installation Commander approved the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force with a general discharge.  He also decided that probation and rehabilitation was not appropriate in the applicant’s case.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 6 Jul 87 with a general discharge under the provision of AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He served 1 year, 9 months and 5 days on active duty.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the documentation in the file, they believe that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation that he did not experience any problems in his Air Force career until he was assigned to his second supervisor.  In support of his assertion, he provides a copy of an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, written by his first supervisor in the Air Force.  The applicant states that if the Board could review the letters of counseling that he received, they would be able to discern that the counselings were not warranted.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In addition, the Board notes that the report provided by the applicant to show that he did not have any problems until he switched supervisors is in fact a Letter of Evaluation that was incorporated into his initial Airman Performance Report (APR).  Although the indorsing official that the applicant states “had a serious control problem” marked him lower in two evaluation factors than the rater, the rater had also marked him down on all performance factors.  Additionally, this initial report was concurred with and signed by a second indorser in the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9).  The applicant has not provided any supporting evidence beyond his own view of what took place during his active duty service.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

__________________________________________________________________

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 02-03363 in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.