RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00317
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since his discharge he has been a model citizen.  He has worked for legitimate companies and has become a successful account manager with General Electric Corporation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Oct 85, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman (Amn/E-2).  The record contains one airman performance report reflecting an overall evaluation rating of 6.

On 15 Jul 87, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for a pattern of misconduct, for discreditable involvement with military or civilian authorities and dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  The bases for the proposed discharge action were that:

On 10 Nov 86, applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial for larceny of property valued at about $150.  His punishment consisted confinement for six months and forfeiture of $477 pay per month for six months.

On 8 Jan 87, he was found guilty by a discipline and adjustment panel for violating his Christmas home parole by staying a night at an unauthorized address and not having a phone number.  His punishment consisted of 14 consecutive days at the one privilege level, he perform 2 hours of additional duty for 14 consecutive days and loss of all accrued good time.

On 10 Jun 87, applicant was advised by AAFES-Europe that his account was delinquent in the amount of $516 and the total balance was due.  On 14 Jul 87, the commander was notified that he still owed $471.16 on his account.

On 15 Jun 87, H&R Sales Inc. advised that his account was delinquent, with a balance of $380.  The merchandise was returned only after demand for payment.

On 26 Jun 87, the First Sergeant counseled applicant concerning his failure to pay the debt of $380.  When advised to pay the debt or return the merchandise, he stated that the merchandise was in his hold baggage at his parents’ house and that he had contacted his father to return the ring to him.  After the original discussion with the First Sergeant, he returned to his office and told him that he had lied about the whereabouts of the ring.  At that same time, applicant advised the First Sergeant that he was overdue in paying his AAFES Deferred Payment Plan and that the squadron would probably hear about it soon.  For this he received a letter of counseling.

On 17 Jul 87, after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of a general discharge.  On that same date, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient to support discharge action and recommended the conditional waiver be accepted and that the applicant be given a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 20 Jul 87, the base commander recommended the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver be accepted.  On 21 Jul 87, the discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 22 Jul 87, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of Misconduct-Pattern discreditable involvement with military and civilian authorities, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 26 days of active duty service (excludes 5 months and 4 days of lost time due to confinement).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03 for review and comment 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.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00317 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair