RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01277
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 October 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly separated due to his weight, not for misconduct.  He passed all fitness tests and performed all job duties without any write-ups.  By today’s Air Force standards, he would have been allowed to complete 20 years of service or more as long as he passed his fitness tests, did his job, and stayed out of trouble.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 February 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force at the age of 21.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman effective and with a date of rank of 22 March 1987.  

On 30 August 1985, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to complete required inspections.  On 12 January 1987, he received an LOC for poor attitude and failure to complete tasks.  On 16 March 1987, he received an LOC for failure to complete his work tasks and leaving work early.  On 15 May 1987, he received an LOC for his activities in the dormitory such as playing loud music, slamming doors, and cooking in unauthorized areas.  On 18 May 1987, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to maintain his dormitory room.  On 19 May 1987, he received an LOR for being charged for illegal parking, no registration, no proof of insurance, and an expired tag.  

On 14 January 1987, the applicant was notified he was enrolled into Phase One of the Weight Management Program (WMP) changing his RE code to “2X” (first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program).  The applicant acknowledged receipt and chose not to appeal the decision.  On 22 March 1987, following progress in the WMP, the applicant was notified he was enrolled into Phase Two of the WMP changing his RE Code to “1J” (eligible to reenlist).  

On 22 July 1987, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty without authority.  His punishment consisted of reduction to airman first class with a new date of rank of 22 July 1987 and forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months.  That portion of his punishment pertaining to forfeiture of pay was suspended until 21 January 1988.  

On 5 August 1987, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend the applicant for discharge based on his misconduct, to wit: minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification; however, failed to respond to the commander’s request of his decision to consult counsel or to submit statements in his own behalf by the suspense date of 11 August 1987.  On 10 August 1987, the commander signed a recommendation to the discharge authority for the applicant’s discharge based on misconduct under AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46 with a general discharge.  On 4 September 1987, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the commander’s recommendation to be legally sufficient.  On 4 September 1987, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation.  The discharge authority considered probation and rehabilitation; however, determined the applicant had demonstrated neither the potential nor the capacity to be rehabilitated and stated the retention of the applicant on active duty would be inconsistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline. 

On 8 September 1987, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (discharged under general conditions).  He served for a period of 3 years, 6 months, and 15 days on active duty.  

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

On 23 May 2007, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities.  As of this date, this office has received no response.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-46 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Infractions).  Nor has the applicant shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's characterization of discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01277:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 9 Apr 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 23 May 07, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Excerpt of AFR 39-10, dtd 1 Oct 84.

						XXXXXXXXXX
									Panel Chair