RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01034
								INDEX CODE:  106.00, 110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  October 2, 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His characterization of service be upgraded from general under honorable conditions to honorable, and his Reenlistment Eligibility Code (RE) be upgraded so he can reenlist in the Air Force Reserve and volunteer to serve overseas in the war in Iraq.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served for three years with above average service.  He scored Expert Marksmanship during Basic Training, completed Security Specialist Course in a timely and efficient manner, completed his 5-skill level in the first three months at his duty station, became a Fire Team Leader, was selected and became certified as a Priority-A Entry Controller in the Weapons Storage Area, was chosen to appear before the E-4 Below-The-Zone Promotion Board, was selected to go to the Law Enforcement Squadron for 6-month duty as an Elite Gate Guard, became a shift leader in the Security Police Armory, received numerous Certificates of Accommodation and Letters of Appreciation throughout his career, and all of his Airman Performance Reports were overall 9 ratings.

His performance declined in his last few months due to his marital separation, and he believes other actions could have been taken rather that a discharge, especially one with a general under honorable conditions characterization.

In support of his application, he has submitted copies of a personal statement, dated 12 February 2007, his DD Form 214, dated 14 August 1989, and correspondence with the office of Senator Christopher S. Bond (MO).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 June 1986 for a period of six years, and served as a security specialist. 

On 6 July 1989, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for an under honorable conditions (general) discharge for unsatisfactory performance, specifically.

a.	Dishonored Check Notification, dated 19 November 1986, for rendering a dishonored check on 3 November 1986, in the amount of $24.94

b.	Notice of Indebtedness, dated 13 April 1987, for failure to pay his rent in a timely manner 

c.	Dishonored Check Notification, dated 9 October 1987, for rendering a dishonored check on 26 September 1987, in the amount of $21.05

d.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 28 March 1989, for dereliction of duties in that he failed to train, supervise, lead, and discipline his armory team

e.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 11 May 1989, for failure to go by failing to attend a mandatory Social Actions appointment for the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program

f.	Letter of Counseling, dated 30 May 1989, for having a female spend the night in his dormitory room even though he was legally married

g.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 30 May 1989, for dereliction of duty in that he failed to maintain his accounted for weapons in a clean and serviceable manner

h.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 30 May 1989, for improper care of household and pets in that he did not provide a proper place for his pets while he was in the hospital, and his Military Family Housing was in total shambles and totally dirty

i.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 12 June 1989, for violating a lawful written order not to drink alcoholic beverages 

j.	Letter of Reprimand, dated 12 June 1989, for disrespect to an NCO in that while being apprehended for drinking alcohol while being under orders not to do so, he became belligerent, uncooperative, and disrespectful 

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.   

On 12 July 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant submitted a written statement to his commander in which he expressed his desire to remain in the Air Force, and stated that his decline in job performance started when his wife and two young boys left him due to marital problems.  He moved into the dormitory for the first time in his career and, with these drastic changes in his personal life, started drinking, thinking this would be the answer to his problems.

A legal review was conducted on 17 July 1989, in which the staff judge advocate recommended applicant be discharged for unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge characterization.  

On 14 August 1989, applicant was discharged in the grade of senior airman (E-4) for unsatisfactory performance IAW AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-26a.  He was given an under honorable conditions discharge characterization, and an RE Code of 2B, Separated with a General or UOTHC Discharge, which bars immediate reenlistment.  He served a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 5 days of net active service. 

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:  

	PERIOD ENDING 				OVERALL EVALUATION

	18 Mar 1989        	 			9
	23 Mar 1988         			9
	 9 Jun 1987     				9

Applicant is entitled to wear the Air Force Training Ribbon, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with one Device, and the Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Long.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to AFR 39-10 (extract copy attached as Exhibit G), nor has he shown that the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offense committed.  At the time of his discharge, AFR 39-10, paragraph 1-18b, stated that characterization of service as general was warranted if an airman’s service had been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed positive aspects of the airman’s military record.  AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-25, further stated that airmen should be discharged when their unsatisfactory performance or conduct showed they were not qualified for service in the Air Force. Performance in the Air Force included, but was not limited to, work done as assigned duties, military training, bearing, and behavior, and necessarily included the member’s continuing responsibility for maintaining the high standards of personal behavior and conduct required of military members at all times. 

AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-26, stated that airmen were subject to discharge for unsatisfactory performance based on documented failure to meet Air Force standards.  Commanders were to weigh an airman’s conduct, military deportment, and duty performance against those of other airmen of like grade, age, and length of service, and paragraph 5-26a stated that one or more of the following could be used as a basis for discharge for unsatisfactory performance:  failure to perform assigned duties properly, a progressively downward trend in performance ratings, failure to demonstrate the qualities of leadership required by the member’s grade, failure to maintain standards of dress, personal appearance, or military deportment, failure to progress in on-the-job training, irresponsibility in the management of personal finances, unsanitary habits, exceeding body fat standards, and failure to meet minimum fitness standards.

The applicant has not alleged any impropriety in the manner in which the discharge was conducted, and the record indicates he was afforded all rights to which he was entitled.  However, notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.

On 17 April 2007, the SAF/MRB Legal Advisor provided a generic opinion concerning service characterization which is contained at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the 17 April 2007 SAF/MRB Legal Advisory was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.  Additionally, applicant was given a chance on 9 May 2007 to provide information within 30 days pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

A copy of the FBI, Clarksburg, WV, Report of Investigation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  He responded in an undated letter, stating that if he was guilty, he would not be putting himself in this position.  Applicant stated that he was good friends with a 15 year old girl and her parents in Euless, TX.  The girl became pregnant and thought that by using his name, her punishment would be lessened due to the close compatibility and friendship between himself and her parents.  As his record states, he was charged, and in the state of Texas, all charges become a matter of record.  He was not convicted of any of these charges, and did not do probation, parole, or register as a sex offender, pedophile, etc.  His only wish is to have his military record upgraded and his RE code changed to a positive.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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.  There is no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge or the RE Code assigned.  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.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper, and the characterization of the discharge and the RE Code assigned were appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the lack of available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  The applicant has not provided any information concerning his post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that he has overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  Should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01034 in Executive Session on 11 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, US DOJ FBI, dated 27 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 May 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit G.  AFR 39-10 Extracts, dated 9 Aug 91.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair