RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03763

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 17 years old and a trouble youth who had just lost his father.  He started getting into trouble and he was not given counseling.  He was not told that he could reenlist and he has carried this guilt of not serving his country for over 20 years.  However, as he looked back, he did the best he could with what he had to work with so he humbly asks the Board to lift that burden off his shoulders.

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 28 Nov 77.  He was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12, (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude) from the Air Force on 15 Jul 78 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 7 months and 7 days of total active duty service.  

On 27 Jun 78, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for failure to maintain prescribed standards of military conduct, his defective attitude and substandard duty performance.  Basis for the action was three Articles 15:  3 Feb 78, for possession of marijuana; 30 Mar 78, for negligent damage to a juke box on base by breaking the glass and damage about $100; and 21 Jun 78, for possession of marijuana.  On 19 May 78, the applicant was not recommended for promotion due to his record of misconduct and he was placed on the Control Roster for substandard conduct.  He received two Letters of Counseling: 23 May 78 for falling asleep during the Commander’s Newcomers briefing and failure to conform to AFR 35-10 regulations; and 21 Jun 78, for being late for weekly inspection for 3 weeks in a row.  An evaluation officer was appointed to interview the applicant and she found he was unsuited for further military service because of failure to maintain prescribed standards of military deportment.  She also did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and they did not recommend P&R.  Applicant consulted counsel and was advised of his rights but declined to present statements.  On 12 Jul 78, the Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Dec 02, for review and comment.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  The records reflect that the commander initiated administrative actions based on information he determined to be reliable and that administrative actions were properly accomplished.  The applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he imposed the discharge action, and since we find no abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 02-03763 in Executive Session on 12 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 13 Dec 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.