RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03513
		INDEX CODE:  
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his discharge be changed from AFR 39-16 (unsuitability) to reflect that he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14 (convenience of the government).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although he can provide no proof, review of his records will support his request.  He served on numerous assignments prior to being assigned to Pease AFB, NH.  His records will reveal that he never had a bad performance rating prior to his arrival at Pease.  When it was time for his annual review, an airman in the grade of E-4 wrote him a poor review.  He discovered that only an NCO was authorized to write his appraisal and after he brought it to the attention of the personnel office, the review was rescinded.  The airman who wrote the appraisal went to the lieutenant who then wrote an unfavorable review.  He complained to the wing commander that the lieutenant had no knowledge of his job performance and the wing commander chastised the lieutenant.  Shortly thereafter he was transferred to a section under the lieutenant's control who ordered the NCO of that section to find a way to get him.  He was assigned to the evening shift and was required to remain on standby after his shift.  He was called back to his duty section several times and accused of leaving the section a mess although he did not leave it that way.  Even though he had the most time in grade, he was passed over for promotion.  That evening he had dinner and a beer with a few friends who had been promoted.  He was then called and told to report to his duty section.  Upon arriving he was asked if he had been drinking.  Even though he told the NCO he had only one beer with his dinner, the NCO said he thought he was intoxicated and relieved him of duty.  The lieutenant attempted to court-martial him but the commander would not allow him to and offered him Article 15 punishment, which he accepted.  The lieutenant was bitter because he could not court-martial him and took steps to have him discharged as undesirable.  At that point he was tired of the harassment and agreed to the discharge without a hearing on condition that the discharge be honorable.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and a copy of his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces Report of Transfer of Discharge.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's complete military personnel records are not available for review, as it appears that they have been lost.  Data extracted from the available personnel records reflects that after serving in the National Guard he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 May 57.  On 12 Jul 61, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14, paragraph 3b, (attrition discharge for inaptitude or unsuitability).  Subsequent to his discharge, he served in the Air National Guard from 31 Oct 77 through 16 Mar 83.  

The applicant requested that he be awarded several additional medals.  His records were administratively corrected to include some of the medals and he was advised that he was not authorized the remainder.  He subsequently withdrew that portion of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that separation for the "convenience of the government" is a general term used for both voluntary and involuntary separations for many reasons and is not a narrative reason for separation as authorized by Department of Defense directives.  DPPES cannot discuss the reasons that led to his discharge due to a lack of documentation in his records.  He is unable to furnish proof that his discharge was unjust.  Therefore, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  He did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The DDPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-035513 in Executive Session on 6 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Dec 02.