RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00556

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The infractions were minor infractions that were childish in nature.  He was very young when he enlisted.  Since his departure from the Air Force, he has been limited in his career possibilities due to that discharge.  He has been in no trouble at all.  The reason for the request is he wants to start a career in Law Enforcement as his wife has done.  Before he applies for the job, he would like his discharge changed.  

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for a period of 4 years on 8 July 1980.  He was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12, (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities) from the Air Force on 22 September 1982 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years, 2 months and 15 days of total active duty service.  

On 7 September 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  Reasons for the action:  Letter of Reprimand (LOR), 19 March 1982, for failure to follow checklist procedures; LOR, 5 June 1981, for alleged peeping tom; LOR, 16 June 1982, for failure to observe military courtesy and violation of AFR 35-10; two Articles 15, 18 February 1982, for storing fireworks in his dorm room, and punishment included suspended reduction to airman, 15 days correctional custody and $100 fine; and Article 15, 9 August 1982, for dereliction in performance of duty, and punishment included reduction to airman, forfeiture of $144 for 1 month and 14 days extra duty.  Additionally, he was counseled numerous times, all of which are well documented, without improvement in his behavior.  His commander appointed an evaluation officer who interviewed the applicant and reviewed his records.  He recommended nonretention, a general discharge and did not recommend probation rehabilitation (P&R).  Member consulted with counsel and submitted statements.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and they did not recommend P&R.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file 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.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 March 2003, for review and comment.  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 that failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  The records reflect that the commander initiated administrative actions based on information he determined to be reliable and that administrative actions were properly accomplished.  The applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge action, and since we find no abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  The only other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of his discharge would be clemency.  However, applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service conduct.   Therefore, in the absence of this documentation, 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 a 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 Docket Number BC-2003-00556 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 10 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.

	
	Panel Chair