RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01905 INDEX CODE:	110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He accepted a general discharge because he was told his educational benefits would not be affected; however, after his separation, he attempted to use his educational benefits only to discover the regulations had been changed six months prior to his discharge. He was not informed of the change at the time of his separation. If he had been, he would have requested review by a Discharge Review Board and could have possibly remained on active duty. He is now trying to work with a physical disability. He needs Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits so he can train into a job that does not aggravate his disability (total left hip replacement).

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 12 December 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

The applicant received three Letters of Reprimand (LOR) with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), a Letter of Admonishment (LOA), and two Records of Counseling (ROC) between 8 November 1988 and 1 February 1991. The applicant’s actions which lead to the aforementioned consequences were a civil arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (LOR), financial irresponsibility (LOR), involvement in a privately owned vehicle accident while intoxicated (LOR), tardiness in paying bills (LOA), failure to correct  or  let  upper  management  help  him  work  safety

discrepancies (ROC), and being ordered to abstain from alcohol for 60 days (ROC).

On 19 February 1991, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge for a pattern of misconduct
- minor disciplinary infractions under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-46. On 28 February 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted counsel, and offered an conditional waiver contingent on his receipt of no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. In addition, he requested that he be considered for probation and rehabilitation (P&R) in accordance with AFR 39-10, Chapter 7. On 1 March 1991, he submitted a statement in his own behalf to his commander.

On 4 March 1991, after consideration of the applicant’s submission, the commander recommended he be discharged without P&R. On 23 April 1991, subsequent to two Staff Judge Advocates finding the case legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for conditional waiver and directed he be issued a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with his request for P&R being denied as not being in the best interest of the Air Force.

On 9 May 1991, the applicant was released from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.   He served 15 years, 4 months and
28 days on active duty.
On 18 July 1994, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant. On 8 July 2008, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 8 July 2008, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response.

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.
1.	
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 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.

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 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01905:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 16 May 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jul 08, w/FBI Report. Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jul 08, w/atch.