RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03270
		INDEX CODE 106.00
		COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1988 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable. Other than youthful indiscretions, he performed well. He has been a productive member of society.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted for six years in the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar 87. During the period in question, he was a law enforcement member assigned to the XXX Security Police Squadron (XXX SPS) at Whiteman AFB, MO. His one performance report reflected an overall rating of 7.

He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 26 Jan 88 for wearing an earring while in uniform on 25 Jan 88. His supervisor also indicated that he had advised the applicant on 18 Jan 88 during a training session about regulations and consequences regarding military males wearing earrings. 

On 23 Feb 88, his commander imposed Article 15 punishment on the applicant in the form of 30-day correctional custody and a suspended reduction from airman first class (A1C) to airman until 21 Aug 88 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 6 Feb 88 for a funeral detail. The applicant consulted counsel, made a written presentation, but did not appeal. The Article 15 was not filed in the applicant’s Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

Statements in the applicant’s record reflect he failed to report on time for duty on 24 Mar 88 and did not clear his absence with anyone. On 28 Mar 88, he was again late for duty.

On 18 Apr 88, he pled guilty and was found guilty by a special court-martial for breach of correctional custody on or about 26 Feb 88 and failure to go on or about 24 and 28 Mar 88. He was reduced to airman basic, confined for four months, and forfeited $400 pay per month for four months. 

On 11 Jul 88, the commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline with a general characterization. The commander cited the incidents above.  The applicant was released from confinement on 15 Jul 88 to await discharge. On that day, his commander recommended his general discharge for misconduct, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The applicant consulted counsel and submitted a statement. 

Legal review conducted on 20 Jul 88 found the case sufficient and recommended a general discharge without P&R.

On 22 Jul 88, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s general discharge. As a result, the applicant was separated on 27 Jul 88 with a general discharge in the grade of airman basic for misconduct after 1 year, 1 month and 15 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has substantiated no errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the 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 7 Nov 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his discharge should be upgraded. Contrary to his assertions, the applicant’s duty performance was not exemplary. Further, he provided no evidence his discharge for misconduct was not supported by his own actions or that he has since become a productive member of society. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 24 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03270 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 27 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.