RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01099
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty, be changed in the following manner: Line 23 should read “Release from Active duty”, line 24 should read “Honorable”, line 26 should read “SBK”, line 27 should read “1J” and line 28 should read “Expiration Term of Active Obligated Service.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because he was not afraid to voice his opinion and to speak up for others, he was harassed and made an example of.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided several letters of support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 June 1982 after serving almost four years with the Air Force Reserve (AFR).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E4) with a date of rank (DOR) of 21 February 1986.  He received an Article 15 on 31 August 1989 for wrongfully and willfully impersonating an officer.  The punishment imposed was reduction in grade to airman first class and forfeiture of $200 for one month.  In addition to the Article 15, he was presented with numerous letters of counseling, letters of reprimand, and verbal counseling’s over the period 23 December 1986 through 9 February 1990.  He was discharged effective 11 May 1990 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge after having served a total of 7 years, 10 months, and 23 days of combined Regular Air Force and AFR service.

_________________________________________________________________

IR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10.  Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.   At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge was outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit C).   Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.

Attached at Exhibit D is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of characterization of service and how standards have changed since 1959.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  Should applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to applicant's 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01099 in Executive Session on 16 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Excerpt, AFR 39-10.
    Exhibit D.  Memo, AFBCMR Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair