RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03688
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not represented at the time of discharge, and was told he could request a change to his discharge at a later date.

The applicant did not submit any supporting documents.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 84 for a period of 4 years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), effective and with a date of rank of 7 Feb 85.  The applicant was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a date of rank (DOR) of 12 Jul 85, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 24 Jul 85, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for this action follows:  Four Letters of Reprimand (LOR), dated 16 May 85, 4 Jun 85, 2 Jul 85 and 16 Jul 85, for writing checks with insufficient funds; and, an Article 15, issued on 9 Jul 85, for being absent without leave (AWOL), in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The Article 15 punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic and a suspended forfeiture of pay.

On 26 Jul 85, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, that he consulted with military legal counsel and that he waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 1 Aug 85, the applicant received a general discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).  He had completed a total of 11 months and 24 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  Applicant’s lost time is reflected as 2 Jul - 5 Jul 85.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant 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.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20 Dec 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than the one he received.  Additionally, the applicant provided no documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good citizenship in the community since his discharge; therefore, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in the form of an upgrade to his discharge.  In view of the above and 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 this application in Executive Session on 13 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03688.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.