RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02598
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “General” discharge be upgraded to honorable.

He be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force.

The “Narrative Reason For Separation” listed on his DD Form 214 be changed from “A Pattern of Misconduct” to N/A.

He and his family be entitled to all standard military benefits, including, but not limited to, the GI Bill, health and wellness benefits, use of military facilities, etc.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unwarranted and was based on the perception of one superior officer who attempted to dehumanize and stereotype him.

He does not believe there is a history of any airman receiving five Letters of Reprimand, an Article 15, and recommendation for discharge within such a short timeframe prior to the actions against him.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of documents from his discharge file.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 11 Oct 00.  On 30 Aug 01, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him she was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for a “Pattern of Misconduct-Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities” and also recommending the applicant’s service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The commander cited the following reasons for this action:

	    a.  Applicant’s receipt of an Article 15 on 22 Aug 01 for failure to obey a lawful order on 9 Aug 01 and dereliction of his duties on 23 May 01 for failure to complete his Career Development Course.

	    b.  Applicant’s receipt of a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 10 Aug 01, for dereliction of duty by failing to properly process a BAS authorization letter.

	    c.  Applicant’s receipt of an LOR, dated 15 Aug 01, with entry into an unfavorable information file (UIF) for dereliction of duty by failing to properly maintain the squadron leave program.

	    d.  Applicant’s receipt of an LOR for dereliction of duty for leaving a set of personnel files, medical and dental files unsecured in the office.

	    e.  Disrespect to an NCO by responding to his supervisor when asked to do a distribution run, it wasn’t his turn and for entering his supervisor’s office without knocking.

The applicant received the notification on 30 Aug 01 but refused to sign acknowledging receipt.  On 7 Sep 01, the applicant submitted a response to the discharge authority requesting he be retained or discharged with an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s Area Defense Counsel also submitted a statement in the applicant’s behalf challenging the validity of the actions taken against the applicant.  The Wing Staff Judge Advocate performed a legal review of the discharge file and determined it to be legally sufficient to support the applicant’s discharge.  They recommended the applicant be discharged with a General discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  After review of the discharge file, the Wing commander determined the applicant should be discharged with a General discharge and not offered probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 3 Oct 01 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, having completed 11 months and 22 days of active service.  The applicant refused to sign the DD Form 214.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on their review of the documentation in the master personnel record, they determined the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of misconduct under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.1.  According to paragraph 5.50, this basis should be used for misconduct considered more serious than that considered under paragraph 5.49 (Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  While a strong argument can be made the applicant’s underlying misconduct would more appropriately fit under paragraph 5.49, there is no denying that sufficient evidence of repeated misconduct on his part justified the applicant’s administrative discharge from the Air Force.  The specific paragraph cited as the discharge basis is at the discretion of the initiating commander and the separation authority.  The Staff Judge Advocate’s office thoroughly reviewed the basis and determined it legally sufficient.

The applicant’s unsubstantiated belief that no history of any airman receiving five LORs, Article 15, decertification, and a recommendation for discharge within such a short timeframe exists prior to his separation is without merit.  Contrary to this assertion, one serious military or civilian offense may be a basis for discharge for misconduct.  A basis for discharge exists if the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) authorizes a punitive discharge for the offense or a closely related one.  At a minimum, the applicant could have received a bad conduct discharge if he had been convicted at a court-martial for disobeying his supervisor’s order to remain in his office.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-02598 in Executive Session on 17 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 28 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.