RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00205
		INDEX NUMBERS: A49.00, A92.01,
					   A93.07, & A93.09
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although he was going through a bitter divorce six months prior to his discharge, he still maintained his military bearing.  His flight supervisor pressured his supervisor to change his performance report.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 31 July 1980 for a period of six years.  He reenlisted on 27 June 1986, in the grade of sergeant, for a period of six years.  He was permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) for financial irresponsibility, and his continuous misrepresentation of the facts concerning his family situation, which led his commander to question his integrity, judgment, and reliability.  He was discharged on 27 June 1991, in the grade of staff sergeant with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-26 for unsatisfactory performance.  He served a total of 10 years, 10 months, and 27 days of active service.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows: 

	PERIOD ENDING 				OVERALL EVALUATION

	30 Jul 81	7
	 3 Dec 81	8
	27 Nov 82	9
	27 Nov 83	8
	27 Nov 84	9
	27 Nov 85	9
	27 Nov 86 w/LOE	8
	13 Oct 87	9
	13 Oct 88 w/LOE	9
	13 Oct 89	9
	29 May 90	3
	 4 Feb 91 (Referral)	1 (CC nonconcurred)
	23 May 91 (Referral)	2

Applicant's request for an upgrade of discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 3 April 1995.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C. 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation pertaining to the applicant’s PRP permanent decertification, the discharge action would have been within the discharge authority’s discretion.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence or provided any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Furthermore, he has not identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 February 2004, for review and response within 30 days.  A copy of the Information Bulletin, Upgrade of Discharge - Clemency, was provided to him on 2 April 2004.  On 20 April 2004, he was provided a copy of the FBI investigative report.  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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service and the events which precipitated the discharge; however, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Applicant has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that he has overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  Should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00205 in Executive Session on 1 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 11 Apr 95, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Feb 04.

    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Apr 04.
    Exhibit G.  FBI Investigative Report.

                                   Panel Chair