RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00626
		INDEX NUMBER: A02.15/16, A64.00

	XXXXXXX, JR.	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident and he was not afforded due process in addressing the charges brought against him.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 26 April 1978.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 September 1980.  On 1 June 1982, the commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civilian authorities as evidenced by 2 Article 15s, 2 Letters of Reprimand (LORs), numerous records of counseling, and three civil court convictions.  After consulting with military counsel, he waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receipt of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His conditional waiver was accepted and he was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 September 1982, under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature).  He completed a total of 4 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active service and was serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of “2B,” which defined means "separated under AFM 39-12 with less than an honorable discharge."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified 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:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 March 2004 for review and response within 30 days.  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-2004-00626 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 7 Dec 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.