RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00629
		INDEX CODE:  107.00, 110.02
		             110.03
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His records be updated to reflect awards that he received.

3.  He be reinstated into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant requested a copy of his service records and noticed numerous errors.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, which has not been used since World War II, negated automatic upgrade of his discharge and his chances for reenlistment.  While stationed at Elmendorf AFB, AK from July 1980 to July 1981, his squadron was awarded the Peacetime Service Ribbon but the certificate is not in his records, nor is his M-16 Qualification and Marksmanship Medal.  His records contain an Article 15 for falling asleep on post, an Article 15 for bounced checks, and three Article 15s for unauthorized reading material.  However, his records did not contain his training material for upgrade to sergeant or the letter submitted by the bank reversing the bounced check charges because there was another James W. Smith with an account number one digit apart from his.  His records did not indicate that the vehicle he was in had holes in the floorboard allowing exhaust to enter into the vehicle resulting in the Article 15 for falling asleep on post.  He was taken to the command center instead of the hospital.  He was taken to the hospital four hours later.  Had he been taken to the hospital immediately, the carbon monoxide would have been detectable.  When he first arrived at Elmendorf, he had a few pay periods in which he did not receive the correct amount of pay.  He got married and had to work part-time jobs after his duty hours to support his wife and himself.  This was the cause of the other Article 15s for falling asleep on post.

In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement.  His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Mar 80.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 7 May 80.  On 26 May 81, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-4c (apathy and defective attitude).  The specific reasons for this action were that on 11 Dec 80, the applicant received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty; on 2 Apr 81, he received an Article 15 for failing to report and wrongful use and possession of marijuana; an 7 May 81, his suspension of nonjudicial punishment was vacated for dereliction of duty; on 26 Sep 80, he was counseled for mailing to meet a required appointment; on 5 Apr 81, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to report to guard mount; on 5 May 81, he received an LOC for a 35-10 violation; on 13 May 81, he received an LOC for failing to provide a phone number for recall use; and on 19 Jun 81, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for writing six bad checks was added to his discharge case file.   He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on 17 Jun 81.  After consulting counsel, applicant elected to submit a statement on his own behalf.  On 3 Jun 81, an Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge.  He further recommended that the applicant be considered for rehabilitation.  In a legal review of the case, the wing staff judge advocate, found the case legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge.  Since the applicant received an LOR subsequent to the evaluation, the staff judge advocate recommended that he be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.  On 1 Jul 81, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged without probation and rehabilitation and issued a general discharge certificate.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 2 Jul 81.  He served 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days on active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the case be denied as untimely.  If considered on its merits, denial is recommended.  JAJM states that by electing to resolve the allegation in the nonjudicial forum, the applicant placed the responsibility to decide whether he had committed the offenses with his commander.  While he raised a defense to the first Article 15 action (carbon monoxide poisoning) he apparently elected not to raise this at the time as illustrated by his election not to make a presentation to his commander.  He chose not to appeal the commander's determination, which prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues he now raises over 22 years later.  There is no information available regarding the offenses.  He had the opportunity to contest the allegations at the time of the Article 15 proceedings.  There is no basis for concluding that the commander's findings were either arbitrary of capricious, and they should not be disturbed.  The BCMR process is not intended to simply second-guess the appropriateness of judgments of field commanders.  The evidence presented by the applicant is insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action.  The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors of injustices in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states that there is no such award as the Peacetime Service Ribbon.  There are no longer badges or bars (Army) awarded for Qualification of Marksman status on the firing range.  The Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon was established on 28 Aug 62 and is awarded to personnel who qualify as expert with either the M-16 rifle or issue handgun at an Air Force firing range.  An AF Form 22 would have been annotated and signed by firing range personnel for updating of his personnel records to reflect award of the ribbon (there is no medal).  There is no indication in his records showing that he fired expert on an Air Force firing range and he did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant upgrade of the characterization of his service or reinstatement into the Air Force.  We see no evidence of an error in this case and after careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an injustice.  In our opinion, given the multiplicity of the offenses he committed against the good order and discipline of the service, and the short period of time in which he served, the characterization of his discharge and the decision to discharge him from the Air Force was in compliance with the appropriate directives.  With regard to his request for award of the Peacetime Service Ribbon and the M-16 Qualification and Marksmanship Medal, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility regarding this matter and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-BC-2003-00629 in Executive Session on 29 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 10 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair