RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00408
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was correct and without errors.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 257AF, General Discharge Certificate, dated 18 Jan 80.  

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Dec 77 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C/E-3).  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1).  

On 18 Dec 79, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature.  The bases for the proposed discharge action were that:

     On 22 Sep 79, applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being derelict in the performance of his duty by failing to be on stand-by, as directed, on or about 22 Sep 79.  His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to airman and forfeiture of $100.

     On 19 Nov 79, applicant received nonjudicial punishment for willfully destroying US military property by throwing a mirror out of a window, on or about 25 Oct 79.  Punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman with a new date of rank of 10 Oct 79 and forfeiture of $100.

     On 3 Dec 79, applicant received nonjudicial punishment for willfully breaking a window, on or about 17 Nov 79.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $150 for two months, and restriction to the base for 30 days.

     In addition, applicant received four letters of counseling between 23 Apr and 30 Nov 79, for checks being returned for insufficient funds, repeated failures to report to duty on time, for departing the duty section without authority and a traffic violation.

After consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of a general discharge or better.  On 27 Dec 79, the Group Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient to support discharge.  He recommended the conditional waiver be rejected and applicant be advised to submit either an unconditional waiver or a request for an administrative discharge board  (ADB) hearing.  The conditional waiver was denied  on 28 Dec 79, and applicant requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board.

On 10 Jan 80, applicant appeared before the ADB convened under the provisions of AFM 39-12.  The Board found that the applicant had committed the incidents of misconduct cited in the commander’s letter of notification and recommended that he be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 15 Jan 80, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 17 Jan 80, the discharge authority directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate and stated that probation and rehabilitation were considered and deemed inappropriate.

On 18 Jan 80, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement with civil/military authorities - board, with service characterized as under honorable conditions.  He was credited with 2 years, 1 month, and 10 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the advisory opinion, applicant apologized for the record.  Since he has been discharged for over 24 years ago, he believes that he has paid the price for his misconduct.  Additionally, he further explained the circumstances surrounding the misconduct which led to his discharge.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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 discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing manual and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00408 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 04, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 04.

                                   Panel Chair