RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03571
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded so that he may qualify for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Throughout his military career, he never had any work-related problems.  He always supported the mission, never jeopardized his security clearance, was awarded an Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), and was certified as a trainer.  He contributed to the MGIB; however, he was unable to complete his time in the Air Force by seven months.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and two unsigned letters of recommendation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment with the Air Force on 18 November 1999.  On 17 April 2003, he received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to misconduct.  Specifically, for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The commander indicated that his bases for the action were the applicant’s civilian conviction for simple assault; his assault on a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 19 April 2002, for which he received an Article 15; his assault on an airman during a basketball practice on 30 October 2001, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); and for falsely stating that his Military Identification card was lost, for which he received an LOR.  He received a general discharge on 2 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He completed a total of 3 years, 5 months, and 14 days and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.

On 31 July 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request to upgrade his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Furthermore, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. 

The AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAT states that if the applicant’s discharge is upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason for separation is changed to either medical reasons, disability, secretarial authority, or miscellaneous reasons, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) may favorably consider his application for MGIB benefits.

The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we note the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate his separation was inappropriate.  There being insufficient 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 Docket Number BC-2003-03571 in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 26 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 5 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.