RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02218
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  VETERANS OF FOREIGN
				   WARS OF USA

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive adequate training nor was he prepared for his job as an administrative specialist.  He attempted to work to the best of his ability.  Also, he was unable to resolve a conflict with a service member who was racially biased.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 August 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 27 April 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, paragraph 5-46, for minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action are:

	a.	On 24 July 1986, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being derelict in his duties by failing to insure mail was given to the appropriate section.

	b.	On 26 September 1986, the applicant received a LOR for failing to go to his place of duty.

	c.	On 16 October 1986, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) for failing to go to his place of duty.

	d.	On 7 November 1986, the applicant received an Article 15 for failing to go his place of duty on 31 October 1986.

	e.	On 2 April 1987, the applicant received a Record of Proceeding of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment (AF Form 366, for failing to go to his place of duty on 19 and 20 March 1987 with a new date of rank (DOR) of 17 November 1986.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him.  He was also advised of his right to submit statements in his own behalf or waive his rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that applicant was counseled by him, the first sergeant, the Chaplin and the Wing Inspector Generals Staff on his unsatisfactory performance and behavior and that all attempts had little effect.

On 27 April 1987, the applicant refused to sign the Letter of Notification and was given a copy.  He also refused to acknowledge that military counsel was made available to him; and that he could submit statements in his own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 13 May 1987, in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.  The legal review further indicated the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf after consulting with counsel.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 28 May 1987, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airman (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.)  He served one year, nine months and ten days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 September 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

On 13 October 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation regarding his activities since military service (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no documentation was provided.

On 3 November 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the investigative report for his review and comment.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, he has not provided any evidence to support those contentions.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02218 in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atch.