RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00912
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young (17 years old) when he enlisted in the Air Force.  He was not prepared for the real world and definitely not ready to be overseas in Germany, where the alcohol flows freely.  He states his discharge was a humiliation and an embarrassment to his parents.  Since his discharge he realizes the mistakes he made in the service and has turned his life around.  He has been married for 16 years and have two children.  He is a productive member of his community and desires his discharge upgraded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 September 1984 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four.

On 2 May 1985, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  He did at Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, on or about 19 April 1985, without authority, through neglect, damage by breaking the glass out of the door on the south-east side, first floor of building 350, of a value of about $45.72, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of $72.82, including labor, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 108.  Further investigation disclosed he was at Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, or about 19 April 1985, disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance, and did attach a written presentation in his behalf.

On 9 May 1985, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: A reduction in grade to airman basic and ordered to undergo correctional custody for 30 days, but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provides for reduction to airman basic is suspended until 8 November 1985, at which time, unless this suspension is sooner vacated, it will be remitted without further action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed in the applicant’s UIF.

On 11 February 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  He did at Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, on or about 7 February 1986, without authority proper authority, willfully damage by putting his fist through the window of the door on the south-west side, first floor of building 350, of a value of about $45.72, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of $72.82.  

Further investigation disclosed he was at Air Base, Federal Republic of Germany, on or about 7 February 1986, drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance, and did not attach a written presentation in his behalf.

On 11 February 1986, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: A reduction in grade to airman, a forfeiture of $150.00, and 14 days extra duty.  His new date of rank as airman was 21 February 1986.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed in the applicant’s UIF.

On 19 March 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The commander indicated his reasons for this action were the Article 15 actions and on 28 February 1985 to 22 April 1985, he was counseled numerous times on his bearing, behavior, reporting to duty on time, and AFR 35-10 violations.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action the applicant had been counseled numerous times on meeting AFR 35-10 standards and reporting to duty on time.  He was counseled on improving his duty performance.  After being identified as drunk on station when he destroyed government property, he was entered into the alcohol evaluation process at social actions.  All attempts at rehabilitation had failed.  He did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant had been given every opportunity to improve his conduct.  

On 26 March 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate conducted a legal review and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and he not be afforded an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.

On 28 March 1986, the discharge authority approved applicant’s general discharge.

On 15 April 1986, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He served one year, seven months, and nine days of total active military service.

On 29 October 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable.  They indicated the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  There exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify with an arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) previously reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and applicant was provided full administrative due process.  The AFDRB further concluded there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices which occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 April 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.	Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Applicant has not provided information of his post-service activities and accomplishments.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude clemency is warranted.  Should the applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service, 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-2003-00912 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 March 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 April 2004.