RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00552
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
			  	COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has led an upstanding life since that mistake.  He is married and wishes to start fresh without guilt of the past.  It has been a long time and this mistake is still haunting him.  He is seeking forgiveness.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 July 1996 in the grade of airman first class for a period of four years.

On 2 September 1997, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for a discharge for misconduct.  The commander cited the following reasons for the discharge:

	a.  On or about 28 October 1996, the applicant operated a motor vehicle, while drunk.  For this misconduct he received an Article 15, dated 15 November 1996, which was placed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in rank to airman, forfeiture of $300.00 of pay a month for 2 months, and 40 days of extra duty.

	b.  On or about 23-24 July 1997, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while drunk.

	c.  The applicant, on 23 July 1997, knowingly disobeyed an order suspending his driving privileges, by driving.  For this 
misconduct, he received an Article 15, dated 20 August 1997, which was place in an UIF and a control roster action was initiated.  His punishment consisted of reduction in rank to airman and forfeiture of $505.00 of pay.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for discharge action the applicant was repeatedly counseled by his superiors concerning accepted standards and behaviors.  The commander further stated the applicant was also placed in Outpatient Treatment for substance abuse.  The commander believed the applicant was not a candidate for probation and rehabilitation and his actions were a blatant disregard for standards.

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel had been obtained to assist him; or he could choose another counsel; submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 8 September 1997, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his right to submit a statement.

On 15 September 1997, a legal review was conducted and the staff judge advocate (SJA) found the case file to be legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 17 September 1997, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 23 September 1997, in the grade of airman with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance with AFI 36-3208 (misconduct - conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).  He served a total of 1 year, 2 months and 14 days of active service.

Applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) in June 1998 to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB, on 24 September 1998, denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Furthermore, the AFBRB previously concluded the applicant’s 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.  Nor did he provide 
any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states this is his second attempt requesting his discharge be upgraded.  The thing that has stood out the most to him with this application was he was asked what injustice was done to him.  He is not sure if there was any injustice done to him, but what he does know is that he made a huge mistake and has always regretted making the mistake.  He realizes when he made those mistakes he was young, naïve and arrogant.  He deeply regrets what he did and is begging from the bottom of his heart for an upgrade.  It has been seven years and he has grown to be a responsible law abiding young man.  He believes this mistake should not haunt him for the rest of his life.  He would like to start a fresh new life with is wife (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to recommend upgrading the applicant’s discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears to the Board the characterization of the discharge was appropriate in view of his misconduct while on active duty.  Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Therefore, absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, the Board finds no basis to disturb the existing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00552 in Executive Session on 21 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 04.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 31 Mar 04.