RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03974
		INDEX CODE: 110.00
 						COUNSEL:  NONE
			  		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His character of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.

2.  His reentry code "2B" which denotes "Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge and narrative reason for separation (Misconduct - pattern conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline) be upgraded to allow his entry into the United States Army.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no injustice in his case, he is only asking for another chance to fight for his country.  He is no longer the irresponsible person he once was but a dedicated adult who realizes he made mistakes in his early years.  The conduct he displayed in the Air Force did not follow him.  He has been a very productive citizen and has not been in any trouble other than a traffic ticket. 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, letters of appreciation, character references and documents extracted from his medical and military personnel records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 September 1989.  On 25 September 1992, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for a pattern of misconduct.  The specific reasons for this action were: 1) he received an Article 15 for wrongfully using provoking gestures, by projecting his middle finger towards two enlisted personnel.  2) He received an Article 15 for possession of marijuana, and the use of marijuana.  3) He received an Article 15 for operating a vehicle while drunk. 4) He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to attend two mandatory dormitory meetings.  5) He received an Article 15 for breaking two windows (value $115.00).

On 25 September 1992, he acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf.  He also acknowledged the action could result in his discharge from the Air Force with a general discharge.

On 13 October 1992, he was discharged in the grade of airman basic with service characterized as general.  He served a total of 3 years and 22 days on active duty.

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

On 27 February 2008, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states a review of the applicant's records revealed the applicant's commander recommended his discharge for a pattern of misconduct; specifically, he received four Article 15’s during the period of 15 August 1990 through 24 August 1992.  DPSOA found no evidence of error or injustice nor did the applicant submit any evidence of any.  The RE code for such a characterization is 2B.  If he is seeking enlistment with another branch of service, that enlisting component may waive any Air Force enlistment bar.

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustice that occurred in the discharge process.  

The complete DPSOS evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the applicant on 15 February 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  The Board finds 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.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, nor has it been shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed and it appears the reentry code assigned and narrative reason for separation are appropriate and correct.  Therefore, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice in connection with these requests.  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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

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-2007-03974 in Executive Session on 8 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 December 2007, w/atchs. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 14 March 2008. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 February 2008, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 January 2008, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 30 January 2008.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 February 2008.