RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02740
		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 was very young when his actions resulted in his being separated from military service.  His training and performance ratings show he intended to maintain his military career.  He executed his duties at the time to the fullest extent of his abilities.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a character reference.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 June 1986 in the grade of airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman on 27 December 1986.  He received one Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 26 June 1987, in which the overall evaluation was “6.”

On 17 July 1987, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant was further advised an under honorable conditions (general) discharge would be recommended.  Bases for the action were:  (1) On 8 December 1986, he failed to report for a mandatory scheduled appointment at the base clinic and received a letter of counseling (LOC).  (2) On 5 February 1987, he received a LOC for not maintaining adequate job qualification standards.  (3) On 15 May 1987, he failed to report for a mandatory scheduled appointment at the base gym and received a letter of reprimand (LOR).  (4) On 16 May 1987, he reported to guard mount late and received a LOC.  (5) On 31 May 1987, he was in violation of AFR 35-10 and received a LOC.  (6) On 27 May 1987, he was late for a mandatory appointment and received a LOR.  (7) On 27 May 1987, he was not at his appointed place of duty and received an Article 15.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $50.00 for one month, but the execution of the portion of this punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman basic was suspended until 2 November 1987, at which time unless the suspension was sooner vacated it would be remitted without further action.  (8) On 19 June 1987, he was derelict in the performance of his duties and received an Article 15.  Punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for one month and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The base legal office found the case file legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 14 August 1987 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 1 year, 1 month and 18 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 20 October 2004, the applicant was invited to provide information on activities he has been involved in since leaving the service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Ex E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 6 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02740 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Oct 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04 and AFBCMR,
	           dated 20 Oct 04.