RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00046

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Consideration should be given because of his spouse’s increased risk pregnancy at the time of discharge, which required her to move back to Arizona from his duty station at Seymour-Johnson AFB.  This circumstance was the catalyst for actions, which resulted in his general under honorable conditions discharge.

Request consideration be given to his extensive contribution since his discharge as a defense contractor for seven years, with a variety of companies, including Comarco Inc., Verify Inc. and Boeing Inc. at the China Lake Navel Weapons Center in Ridgecrest, CA.  In addition, he held a Secret security clearance during this period of time.  He feels that his efforts and contributions on a variety of critical projects and programs while at China Lake Navel Weapons Center more than compensates for any offense or shortcoming which resulted in his discharge of September 5, 1980.

In support of his request, he submits a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States.
 
Applicant’s complete application, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 30 March 1979.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provision of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable-Apathy, Defective Attitude)) with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) on 5 September 1980 in the grade of airman.  He served 1 year, 5 months and 6 days of total active military service.

On 26 August 1980, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for failure to maintain prescribed standards of military deportment.  Reason for the action:  14 August 1979, he was counseled and verbally reprimanded for being late for duty on 13 August 1979;           5 November 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to have his dormitory room in inspection order; Article 15, 28 January 1980, for failure to go; counseled on 14 February 1980, for failing his Career Development course test; and Article 15, 11 August 1980, for being absent without leave from 4 July to 1 August 1980.  Applicant consulted with counsel, submitted an unconditional waiver to an administrative discharge board hearing, and did not submit statements.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  They recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The Discharge Authority approved the separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R on 2 September 1980.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he is sure that the Air Force’s intentions are to deny his request and keep things the way they are.  Fortunately, his discharge has not affected his ability to get work, even in the defense industry, even security clearances.  Interesting, he can get a security clearance without a hitch, which means the country trusts him handling sensitive information, but the Air Force STILL considers him “Unsuitable - Apathetic, and having a Defective Attitude.”  If changes are not made then he will seek a court order to have his DD Form 214 sealed so that it will not be available after he is deceased. 

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 initiated the discharge action, and since we find no abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  The only other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of his discharge would be clemency.  However, applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service conduct.   Therefore, in the absence of this documentation, 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 BC-2003-00046 in Executive Session on 15 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 19 May 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, undated.