RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00315
		INDEX NUMBERS: 110.00 & A60.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His conduct that resulted in his discharge was the result of the personal problems he was experiencing.

After completing basic training, he married; however, his wife ran off with another airman.  He then began drinking heavily and turned to drugs.  Prior to this, he was somewhat of a good airman.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 12 June 1978.  On 4 February 1982, the commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.  The bases for the proposed action were as follows:

	a.	On 24 May 1980, the applicant received an Armed Forces Traffic ticket for parking in a reserved space.

	b.	On 10 August 1980, he received an Armed Forces Traffic ticket for driving with an expired tag.

	c.	On 25 January 1981, he was apprehended for wrongful possession of marijuana and exceeding the speed limit, for which he received an Article 15, dated 4 February 1981, resulting in reduction to the grade of airman, restriction to the limits of XXXX AFB for 30 days, 30 consecutive days of extra duties, and forfeiture of $100.00 pay for two months, all of which was served concurrently.  In addition, on 4 March 1981, he was placed into the Drug Rehabilitation program.

	d.	On 27 April 1981, he was apprehended for reckless driving in XXXX, and found guilty in XXXX Court on 13 April 1981 (sic).

	e.	On 1 May and 22 May 1981, he failed to report for scheduled appointments at Social Actions, for which he received verbal counselings.
	
	f.	On 19 August 1981, he reported to his place of duty with his face not cleanly shaven in violation of AFR 35-10, Table 8-1.

	g.	On 19 August and 21 August 1981, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, for which he received an Article 15, dated 26 August 1981, resulting in reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $100.00 pay, and ordered to perform 14 days of extra duties, of which the grade reduction and forfeiture of pay were suspended for six months.

	h.	On 13 October 1981, he was apprehended for driving with a suspended license in XXXX, and ordered to pay $62.50 in XXXX Court.

	i.	On 11 January 1982, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, for which he received an Article 15, dated 22 January 1982, and the suspended punishment as a result of the Article 15, dated 26 August 1981, was vacated.

He was discharged on 15 March 1982, under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature).  He completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows: 

	PERIOD ENDING 				OVERALL EVALUATION

	  19 Sep 79					   8
	  19 Sep 80					   7
	  15 Apr 81					   8
	   3 Feb 82					   6

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit F. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Furthermore, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was doing well in the Air Force until he came home and found his wife in bed with another airman, whom she eventually married.  He then began drinking, showing up late for work, and basically quit caring.  His heart was broken after his first love was unfaithful.  Since his discharge he has obtained his associate’s degree in math and computer science.  However, no one wanted to hire an ex-con and someone that had been discharged other than honorably.  He applied for, and received clemency on his right to bear arms, voter’s registration, and concealed weapons license.  In addition, he has remarried and owns two homes.  He has been drug free for over 17 years.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Manual 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 that his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant recommending the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and the events that precipitated the discharge.  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-2004-00315 in Executive Session on 10 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  FBI Investigative Report.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.

                                   Panel Chair