RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00104
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a model troop.  He was  in charge of his squadron during their police academy.  He was also in charge of his troop at Fort Dix.  He did his job to the best of his ability and more.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 November 1989.

Applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class on 4 January 1990.

Applicant’s overall rating on his EPR rendered for the period   17 November 1989 through 16 July 1991 was a “3” referral report.

On 18 March 1992, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  He recommended a general discharge.  Basis for the action was a Letter of Reprimand, on 31 July 1990, for failure to go to an appointment; 26 June 1991, given a formal notice by an off-base establishment not to return to the premises nor telephone its employees; 28 June 1992, his commander gave him a written order to have no communication with a certain female because she complained he was harassing her; 23 September 1991, Letter of Counseling for violation of AFR 35-10; 8 November 1991, driving while intoxicated and having driving privileges revoked;         3 and 4 December 1991, failure to report to dormitory CQ duty on time; 13 December 1991, disobeyed a lawful command by driving with suspended driving privileges; and 2 February 1992, failure to go on time to prescribed place of duty.  After consulting with counsel, he submitted statements to his commanders for consideration.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  His commanders did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because in spite of numerous counselings, he failed to improve.  On 13 April 1992, the Discharge Authority approved the separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 17 April 1992 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years, 5 months and 1 day on active duty.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable on 12 June 1998.  The AFDRB decision document is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the Discharge Authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the decision of the AFDRB and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 02, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Feb 03.