RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03207
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the contested time period he was young and arrogant.  The character of discharge he received was inappropriate.  He cannot receive certain services because of his discharge.  He is a homeless veteran in dire need of help.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 December 1983 in the grade of airman basic.  On 24 September 1985, applicant was notified by his commander of her intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46.  The specific reasons follow:

		a.  On 19 July 1984, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  For this offense he was counseled.

		b.  On 7 October 1984, he wrongfully assaulted two airmen, committed a breach of the peace, and wrongfully destroyed private property.  For these offenses he was punished pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ, consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman basic and ordered to perform 30 days correctional custody.

		c.  Between 9 November 1984 and 10 December 1984, he uttered a check to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service and then failed to maintain sufficient funds within his account to make payment in full when the check was presented for payment.  For this offense he was counseled.

		d.  On 3 March 1985, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty for which he was reprimanded.

		e.  On 5 June 1985, he wrongfully operated a privately owned motor vehicle without possessing a valid U.S. Forces driver’s license, and failed to operate that vehicle in a safe manner which resulted in substantial property damage.  For these offenses, he was reprimanded.

		f.  On 6 June 1985, he wrongfully solicited another person to commit an offense, and attempted to use his position as a security policeman for his own personal gain.  For this offense he was reprimanded.

		g.  On 25 July 1985, he wrongfully engaged in a mutual affray with another airman.  During that affray, he apparently lost his temper and placed the airman in a head lock which resulted in that airman sustaining a cracked windpipe.  For this offense he received a reprimand.

		h.  On or about 6 September 1985, he reported for duty as a security policeman while under the influence of intoxicants and had accepted a weapon from the base armory despite having consumed alcohol during the eight hours immediately preceding his tour of duty.  For this he was reprimanded.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification.  After consulting with counsel applicant elected to submit statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  On 21 October 1985, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed discharge with a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on 29 October 1985.  He served 1 year, 10 months and 15 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report which is at Exhibit C.

On 18 January 2008, the applicant was provided the opportunity to respond to the Investigative Report and to provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, within 30 days (Exhibit D).  On 25 February 2008, the documentation was returned as undeliverable.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

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(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 31 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03207 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 September 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 18 January 2008.