RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01939
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his discharge could be upgraded after 3 years.  The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 July 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was trained as an Apprentice Fire Protection Specialist.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1983.  He received two enlisted performance reports covering the period 20 July 1983 through 11 October 1984, both with overall ratings of seven.

The applicant received two Letters of Reprimand (LOR), three Letters of Counseling (LOC), a Memo for Record (MFR) and a verbal counseling between the dates 4 November 1983 and 11 October 1984, for financial irresponsibility, tardiness and use of a controlled substance.  On 11 September 1984, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for a conviction of drunken and disorderly conduct.  As punishment, the applicant received reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) with a new date of rank of 17 September 1984 and 14 days of extra duty.  

On 11 October 1984, his commander recommended the applicant be separated with general discharge under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-47b, without probation and rehabilitation for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted military counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  On 13 November 1984, the recommendation was found to be legally sufficient by the assistant staff judge advocate.  On 26 November 1984, the discharge authority approved the discharge and ordered a general discharge under AFR 39-10, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph 5-47b.  The applicant was discharged effective 30 November 1984 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a reentry code of 2B and a separation code of JKM (misconduct).  He served 1 year, 4 months and 11 days on active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Additionally, there are no regulations or directives that allow for an automatic upgrade of a discharge.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  The 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 11 July 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 11 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01939 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 2003.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jul 2003.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 2003.