RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00355
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
			  	COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable condition (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was an excellent soldier until he made the mistake of not reporting an airman who stole a television.  He is very sorry for what he did and if he could change it he would.  He is now married with children and has been working at the same job for 11 years.  He believes everyone deserves a second chance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 July 1987 for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 2 March 1989, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for a discharge for misconduct.  The commander cited the following reason for the discharge:

	On 21 December 1988, the applicant received an Article 15 for assisting another servicemember in stealing a television.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic with a new date of rank of 21 December 1988.  Forfeiture of $150.00 of pay per month for two months (suspended until 20 June 1989, at which time it would be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated), and 45 days of extra duties.  On 3 February 1989, the commander set aside the reduction below the grade of airman.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and to submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he directed the First Sergeant to stay abreast of the applicant’s affairs, morale, and accomplishments of his duties.  The First Sergeant had to counsel the applicant on six occasions for various performance problems.  During one counseling session, the applicant’s spouse attended for clarification of circumstances and rationale leading to disciplinary action under Article 15.  His commander further stated the applicant committed a serious crime as a law enforcement specialist.  As a result of his action, he had permanently damaged his ability to perform police duties with expertise and integrity.  He further recommended the applicant be discharged with an under honorable condition (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 7 March 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his right to submit a statement.

On 16 March 1989, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 24 March 1989, in the grade of airman with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct).  He served a total of two years, eight months and one day of active service.

Applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) in April 1990 to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB, on 16 October 1990, denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  He also did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Furthermore, an appeal to have his discharge upgraded was considered and denied by the AFDRB.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 March 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

On 13 May 2004, the Board requested the applicant provide documentation on his post-service activities (Exhibit F).

The applicant states he was young and was influenced by his roommate and was not thinking of all the consequences of his actions.  He is very sorry for what he did.  Since leaving the military he has lead a pretty clean life.  He has held a steady job and is involved in activities within his community.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached 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 of timely file.

3.	After a thorough review of the evidence of record we see no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.  However, the Board recognizes the adverse impact of the discharge the applicant received; and while it may have been appropriate at the time, the Board believes it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer from its effects.  In consideration of the applicant’s apparent successful transition to civilian life, and no evidence that he has had any subsequent involvement of a derogatory nature since his separation from the Air Force, the Board believes that corrective action is appropriate on the basis of clemency.  Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 24 March 1989, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00355 in Executive Session on 5 May 2004 and 21 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Mar 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 May 04.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, applicant, dated 20 May 04.

							Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00355

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116) it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to                   , be corrected to show that on 24 March 1989, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge certificate.

					
					Director
					Air Force Review Boards Agency