RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02221
							INDEX CODE:  110.00
    							COUNSEL:  NONE
    							HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 JANUARY 2009

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his separation be changed.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was racially motivated.  His first sergeant had singled him out within the squadron on numerous occasions with unwarranted verbal reprimands.  He wanted to complete his first tour of duty and move on to Officer Training School.  The narrative reason has a negative connotation about his character. 

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  He received two Airman Performance Reports closing 3 June 1980 and 29 January 1980, in which the overall evaluations were 7, and 9 respectively.

On 20 June 1979, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled chemical urinalysis appointment.  For this incident, he was counseled.  

On 20 September 1979, he issued a worthless check to the Holloman AFB Main Exchange.  For this incident, he was counseled.  

On 22 April 1980, a letter of indebtedness was received from Gordon’s Jewelers indicating his account was in arrears of $109.80.  For this incident, he was counseled and on 25 February 1980, he was also issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
On 3 April 1980, a letter of indebtedness was received from Desert Cleaners, Holloman AFB.  It was noted to be the second dishonored check issued by the applicant.   

On 7 June 1980, he issued a worthless check to the Holloman AFB Main Exchange.  For this incident, he was verbally counseled.  

On 13 June 1980, he issued a worthless check in the amount of $100.00 to Security Bank and Trust, New Mexico.  

On 10 July 1980, the applicant loitered on post.  For this incident, he was counseled and was issued an LOR.  

On 18 July 1980, he issued a worthless check to the Holloman AFB Main Exchange.

On 30 July 1980, applicant was noted not to be completing his upgrade training promptly.

On 26 August 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4g, for financial irresponsibility.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that an honorable discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights in the matter.  On 4 September 1980, an evaluation of the case file was conducted.  Following his review of the record and an interview with the applicant, the evaluation officer recommended an honorable discharge and stated that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service but should be considered for rehabilitation.  The applicant elected to submit statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge without consideration for rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 17 September 1980 and was assigned narrative reason for separation “Unsuitable-Financial Irresponsibility.”  He served 1 year, 7 months and 18 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant denies the facts presented.  Applicant states although he does not have physical evidence that would show injustices brought upon him, he will pursue a formal civil hearing and will show proof (through an investigation) that all accusations noted in his master personnel record were fabricated to discredit and harm his reputation.  He feels the information noted is slander which warrants civil action.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit 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.  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 are not persuaded that the applicant's narrative reason for separation is erroneous or unjust.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for their 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 issue 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-2007-02221 in Executive Session on 12 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-02221 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jul 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Aug 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Aug 07.