RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00217
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a clean record while in the service.  He only left early for personal reasons.

In support of the appeal, the applicant did not submit any documents.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 April 1968 for a period of 4 years.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E‑3), effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1968.  He received four Airman Performance Reports, closing 10 February 1969, 11 November 1969, 10 March 1970, and 29 November 1970, in which the overall evaluations were 8, 9, 8, and 9 (highest rating 9), respectively.

On 24 February 1970, the applicant received disciplinary punishment for being drunk and disorderly in station.  The punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman, correctional custody for 7 days and forfeiture of $25.00 of his pay.  The suspension of the reduction in grade was vacated on 7 May 1970 based on the determination that the applicant left his duty station without authority.  He was again promoted to the grade of airman first class on 1 September 1970.

On 29 June 1971, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending a general discharge for character and behavior disorder.  Reasons for this action:  Applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on 8 March 1971 for using disrespectful language toward a superior NCO and punishment was forfeiture of $25; and Article 15, 15 June 1971, for failure to repair, punishment was reduction to airman and forfeiture of $30.  He received four records of counseling:  On 12 February 1971 for failure to repair, 3 May and 17 May 1971, for failure to maintain proper personal appearance; and 13 May 1971, for failure to obey a lawful order.  On 23 June 1971, an Air Force psychiatrist evaluated the applicant and rendered a diagnosis of character and behavior disorder, specifically, a passive-aggressive personality.

An evaluation officer was appointed to review the case and interview the applicant.  Upon review and personal interview, the evaluation officer concurred with the commander and recommended a general discharge.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.  On 30 July 1971, the applicant signed a statement declining to submit statements in his behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge on 6 August 1971 and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge on 17 August 1971.  He was credited with 3 years, 4 months and 8 days of active duty, of which 1 year and 7 months was foreign or Southeast Asia (SEA) service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe 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.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the copy of the letter indicated “applicant declined to submit statements on his behalf,” the reason is he was not there.  Also his rank was not downgraded at his last post of Saratoga AFS, NY.

He states that the records are inaccurate, no wonder he couldn’t get a government job all these years.  Whoever did this to him had a grudge against him.  As he remembers now, the NCOs did not like him because he would not join or socialize with them in the NCO Club with their daily drinking.  There are also other issues of this NCO.  When he reported to his station, he found he was working for civilian employee of very much experience and never saw one military person in that shop at any time.  If there was to be someone of rank the only place they were seen was in the club.

His 30+ years of a clean record and perfect credit history should stand for something.  Also, his work history and his approval record should stand for something.  He served his country 3 plus years in Korea during the USS Pueblo incident in 1970.  Have been a VA State Inspector for 25 years, and ASE certified for 12 years.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  There is no indication in the available evidence which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation under which it was effected or that it was unjust.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided no evidence showing that the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than the one he received.  In the absence of such evidence, we have no basis on which to favorably consider his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 03.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Feb 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Feb 03.