RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03585
								INDEX CODE:  110.02; 110.03
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment code (RE) be changed so he can enlist in the Air National Guard.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young at the time of his discharge, and he did not realize the gravity of his situation.  Had he realized the importance, he would have fought more diligently for an honorable discharge, and the reenlistment code associated with that type separation.

In support of his request, the applicant has provided a personal statement, copies of his separation document, his enlistment contract signed on 17 July 1978, and an Article 15 punishment.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 17 for a period of 6 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 17 July 1979.  He received three Airman Performance Reports (APRS, closing 16 July 1979, 16 July 1980, and 9 July 1981), in which the overall evaluations were “8,” “7” and “7,” respectively.

On 1 August 1979, the applicant was cited in an Incident Complaint Report, for improperly backing a government vehicle.  On 2 November 1979, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to work on four different occasions.  On 22 January 1980, the applicant was cited on an Incident Complaint Report, for alleged Government Vehicle accident.

On 20 February 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to work.  On 24 April 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to work.

On 8 May 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for dishonored checks.  On 2 June 1980, the applicant received a letter, indorsed by his commander, regarding unpaid telephone charges.

On 3 July 1980, punishment was imposed on the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ, based on his commander’s determination that he possessed two grams, more or less, of marijuana, on or about 24 June 1980.  He was ordered to forfeit $50.00 per month for two months and received a suspended reduction in grade to airman basic until 1 December 1980, on which date, unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.

On 17 October 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for reporting late to duty.  On 21 October 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for not following technical order instructions during a teardown.  On 30 October 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for repeated failure to report to work on time.  Based on this same information, his commander issued a Letter of Reprimand to him and placed the applicant’s name on the control roster.  On 5 November 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to his duty section at the prescribed time.

On 10 November 1980, the suspension of the reduction in grade imposed by the Article 15 punishment on 3 July 1980 was vacated based on the applicant’s failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 4 November 1980.  The applicant reverted to the grade of airman basic.

On 19 December 1980, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for failure to attend a dental examination.  On 30 April 1981, the applicant received a letter of indebtedness for delinquent Consolidated Open Mess account.

On 1 June 1981, the applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ, for operating a vehicle without a valid US Forces driver’s license.  The applicant was reduced in grade from airman first class to airman basic and fined $116.00 for one month.  In imposing the punishment, the commander noted the applicant had failed to respond to the original notification of intent within the three duty days, as he was required to do.

On 30 July 1981, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section B, for “frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.”  The applicant was advised of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  The discharge case file was reviewed by the Acting Staff Judge Advocate, and was found legally sufficient.  The discharge authority approved the recommended separation on 2 September 1981, and directed that the applicant be separated with a general discharge certificate without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 17 September 1981, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Misconduct-Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature).  He had served 3 years, 2 months and 1 day on active duty.  An RE-2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge) was assigned.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPRS stated that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They also note that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge, and the request is untimely.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE state that the applicants RE Code 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge,” is correct.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 January 2004 for review and response.  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.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than the one he received.  After reviewing the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, we do not find the characterization of his discharge unduly harsh for the numerous offenses committed.  Although the applicant’s age and immaturity may have been contributing factors to his lack of good judgment, they do not, in our opinion, excuse his misconduct.  Based on the above determination, we also believe that no change in his RE code is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this applicant.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 an Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03585:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 03, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Dec 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Dec 03.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.