RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03705
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under other than honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged in 1984 due to some financial mismanagement that resulted in him writing some bad checks.  He has since learned his lesson concerning personal finance.  He contends also that his first sergeant and commander told him his discharge would be upgraded if requested.

Applicant’s appeal is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Jul 1983.  He was promoted to the grade of Airman (AMN/E-2) with an effective date and date of rank of 12 Jan 1984.

Applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 14 Dec 1983 for failing a room inspection.  He received an LOC on 23 Jan 1984 for failing a uniform inspection.  On 8 Mar 1984, the applicant was cited for not having his hair cut with an LOC.  On 12 Mar 1984, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing a bad check.  On 5 Apr 1984, the applicant received another LOR for writing a bad check.

He received an Article 15 on 29 Mar 1984 for writing a bad check.  The Article 15 imposed a reduction in grade to Airman Basic (AB/E-1), forfeiture of $100 (both of which were suspended, unless sooner vacated, until 22 Sep 1984) and 30 days of correctional custody.  The reduction in grade to AB was vacated on 4 Apr 1984 as the applicant reported to correctional custody without required items he was ordered to report with.  His new date of rank for AB was 10 Apr 1984.

On 13 Apr 1984, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due his pattern of misconduct.  He received a general discharge on 24 Apr 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, (Misconduct-Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline).  He was not considered for Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R).  He had completed a total of 9 months and 13 days and was serving in the grade of AB at the time of discharge.  He received a Reenlistment Eligibility Code (RE) of 2B, which defined means Discharged under General or other-than-honorable conditions. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS stated that based on the information in the applicant’s file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Additionally, DPPRS notes that the applicant provided no new evidence to support his claim nor did he identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge processing.  

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, there has been no response received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting an upgrade of the characterization of his service.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03705 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 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 10 Jan 03.