RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01125
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  Yes
_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was conflict with him and his immediate supervisor due to a difference in personalities.

He is presently in school to become a minister and this is something in his past that needs to be cleaned up.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 1977 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 10 June 1980, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12, (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude).

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

	a.  On 15 May 1979, the applicant received a Record of Counseling for reporting late for duty and his noncompliance with AFR 35-10 grooming standards.

	b.  The applicant on 20 September 1979, received a Record of Counseling for failing to show proper respect and courtesy to his co-workers.

	c.  On 19 December 1979, the applicant received a Record of Counseling for reporting late for duty and substandard duty performance.

	d.  On 22 January 1980, the applicant was placed on the Control Roster for continued financial irresponsibility.

	e.  The  applicant  received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 25 January 1980 for going on leave with the knowledge that he would not return from leave before the expiration of his leave period.

	f.  On 1 February 1980, the applicant received a LOR for reporting late for duty on 24 and 30 January 1980.

	g.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 25 March 1980 for being disrespectful in language towards a superior NonCommissioned Officer (NCO) on 7 March 1980, for going from his appointed place of duty without proper authority on 7 March 1980 and for wrongful use of provoking words on 4 March 1980.  For this misconduct his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture of $200.00 per month for two months.  The applicant appealed the Article 15 and on 4 April 1980, the appeal authority advised him that that portion of the punishment in excess of reduction to the grade of airman and the forfeitures of $100.00 per month for two months was suspended until 1 October 1980.

An AFM 39-12 evaluation was conducted on 7 July 1980 and the evaluation officer counseled the applicant on the nature of the action and advised him of his right to submit statements in his own behalf or waive the above rights in writing.  The evaluation officer recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and not be considered for rehabilitation.

On 7 July 1980, after consulting with the evaluation officer, the applicant invoked his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 11 July 1980 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 3 Mar 78			7
			20 Ju1 78			8
			13 Mar 78			9
			27 Jun 79		Letter of Evaluation
			28 Jan 80			8
			 9 Jun 80			6

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 15 July 1980.

Applicant was discharged on 17 July 1980, in the grade of airman with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude.)  He served a total of 3 years, 4 months and 13 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Nor has he provided any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May 2003, for review and response.  On 9 June 2003, the Board staff advised the applicant of the opportunity to submit post service information.  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 the failure of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with 
Air Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.	Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Applicant has not provided information on his post-service activities and accomplishments after being provided an opportunity to present such information to the Board.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

5.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01125 in Executive Session on 26 August 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 03.

							
							Panel Chair