RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01492
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant did not state any contentions.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 January 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four years.  Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C/E-3).  He received one performance report with an overall promotion recommendation of 6.

On 25 May 1973, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant because of his apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively, which prevented him from absorbing military training and developing into a satisfactory airman.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were that:

On or about 12 Feb 73, the applicant received an Article 15 for being disrespectful to a superior officer on or about 2 Feb 73.  His punishment consisted of suspended reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $50 per pay for one month, and restriction to the limits of the base for 14 consecutive days.

On 2 May 73, he was found wearing an unauthorized wristband and not wearing his required blue scarf.  He was derelict in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to maintain a proper traffic flow at the vehicle gate.

On 3 May 73, he was found in improper uniform while on duty.  While on duty, he failed to answer to his name when he was called by a superior non-commissioned officer.

On or about 6 May 73, he reported for duty in improper uniform, in that his uniform was unzipped, he was missing his nametags and a scarf, and did not have his flashlight.

On 7 May 73, he did not respond to his name when called by a superior non-commissioned officer, and reported for duty in improper uniform.

On 8 May 73, he was found asleep while posted as a main gate guard.  He was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to check the occupants of a bus entering the base.

On 9 May 73, he reported for duty in improper uniform.

On 10 May 73, he was twice found asleep while posted as a cargo gate guard.

On 11 May 73, he reported for duty in need of a shave and was found loitering while posted as a main vehicle gate guard.

On 12 May 73, he refused to perform his duty as a security policeman.

After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and submitted statements in his own behalf, stating he felt like the Air Force was trying to destroy him and he thought a general discharge was too severe.  He declined to volunteer for the rehabilitation program.  On 30 May 1973, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  

On 1 June 1973, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without P&R.

On 13 June 1973, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 29 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same and his request be denied.  

A complete copy of the 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 11 Jul 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  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 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-2003-01492 in Executive Session on 10 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter,  HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 01 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.

                                   
                                   Chair