RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03548
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT  	COUNSEL:  XXXX

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had an excellent service record except for a few minor disciplinary infractions.  When these minor incidences occurred he was very young and immature.  He feels the general discharge was too harsh.  He has not been in any trouble since leaving the military and has been steadily employed and attending college.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 December 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for a period of four years.  

On 13 January 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to initiate discharge action against him for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The commander recommended a general discharge.  The reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.  On 29 April 1986, the applicant drove a government vehicle at an excessive speed on the QRA taxiway.  For this misconduct he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC). 

	b.  The applicant received an LOC on 11 March 1987 for not properly performing his duties on 10 March 1987.

	c.  The applicant, on 13 July 1987, did not adhere to his responsibilities as a member of the United States Air Force as evidenced by the LOC dated 17 July 1987.

	d.  The applicant received an LOC for not reporting to duty on time on 22 July 1987.

	e.  The applicant, on or about 14 August 1987, operated a vehicle with an expired registration and nonvalid USAFEUR driver’s license.  For this misconduct he received an LOR.

	f.  On 18 November 1987, the applicant failed to report for duty on time, he received an LOC.

	g.  The applicant received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly on 25 November 1987.  His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of $200, 30 days extra duty and restriction to base. 

	h.  On 5 January 1988, the applicant jeopardized the safety of equipment and personnel by playing a portable radio in a fuels environment.  For this misconduct the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him; and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 13 January 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification and invoked his right to submit statements on his behalf.  On 25 January 1988, the applicant submitted a written statement that he was not going to submit statements.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for discharge the following actions were taken in an attempt to rehabilitate or correct the applicant.  The applicant was reprimanded, served an Article 15, the First Sergeant counseled the applicant; and he was referred to Mental Health and Social Actions for evaluation.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 1 February 1988 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 23 February 1988, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 29 February 1988, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He  served a  total of 2 years, 1 month and 10 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his general (under honorable conditions) discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB denied his request on 23 March 1989.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states when he entered the Air Force he had just gotten out of high school and was not sure of what he wanted to do with his life.  He thought the military would give him a chance to meet some challenges away from the security of his home and it would also give him time to decide on a career.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit G.

Applicant’s counsel reviewed the application and Air Force evaluation and concurs with the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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 of 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 02-03548 in Executive Session on 25 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Ms. 
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jan 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 3 Feb 03,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel’s Response, undated.