RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00835
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL: 

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to rollbacks, he was discharged instead of disciplined and allowed to continue and finish his military career in an honorable manner.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 October 1985 for a period of four (4) years.

On 8 March 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  preliminary investigation disclosed he, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by his commander, to wit: paragraph 4(a)(2)(a), Nellis Air Force Base Regulation 125-2, dated 12 June 1987, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on or about 25 February 1988, fail to obey the same by wrongfully possessing firearms and munitions in the dormitory, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Further investigation disclosed in that he did, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on or about 19 February 1988, steal 30 mm of ammunition, military property, of a value less than $100.00, the property of the United States Air Force in violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, submitted a written presentation in his behalf and requested to make a personal appearance.  However, he did not desire that it be public.

On 15 March 1988, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank of 15 March 1988, and a forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 28 March 1988, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Commission of a Serious Offense.  The specific reason was the Article 15 action, dated 15 March 1988.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation, according to AFR 39-10, chapter 7, paragraph 7-2.  He believed it would be in the best interest of the Air Force to discharge the applicant.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 29 March 1988, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 29 March 1988, the discharge authority approved the general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 30 March 1988, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Other Serious Offenses).  He served 2 years, 5 months, and 28 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices which occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 April 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate the commander exceeded his authority or the reason for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The Board believes responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.

4.	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.  The applicant has not provided information of his post-service activities and accomplishments.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Should applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service activities, this Board would be willing to review this information for possible reconsideration of this case.  However, we cannot 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 an error or an 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-2004-00835 in Executive Session on 2 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 April 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 April 2004.