RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01925
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge because the USAF should have never accepted him because he was a minor when he enlisted.  He was not of legal age when he enlisted.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, a copy of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, and a copy of his discharge document.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 17 October 1963 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-3) on 12 December 1963.  He received two Airman Performance Reports for the periods ending 16 October 1964 and 13 March 1965, in which the overall evaluations were “marginal” and “unsatisfactory,” respectively.

On 1 February 1965, the commander notified the applicant that he recommended a discharge from the Air Force for inaptitude.  He recommended an honorable discharge.  Basis for the discharge was that the applicant had been counseled numerous times because he is unable to adjust to military life, unresponsive to counseling, and could not absorb and retain instructions and training.  On 29 December 1964, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for failure to repair; and was restricted to base for 30 days.  On 1 October 1964, he was tried and convicted by a Summary Court-Martial for careless discharge of a weapon.  He was reduced to airman basic, forfeit $50 and restricted to base for 30 days.  He was placed on the control roster for a referral performance report for the period 17 October 1953 to 16 October 1964.  He was counseled on his unsatisfactory appearance and his lack of initiative to perform his duties.  He failed to demonstrate sufficient drive and ambition to progress in his military career.  An evaluating officer was appointed.  He interviewed the applicant and detailed the reasons for his recommended discharge and to the characterization applicant could expect to receive.  The applicant did not offer a rebuttal.  The evaluating officer recommended a general discharge after considering all the facts and circumstances.  The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge.  The Discharge Authority approved and ordered a general discharge on 6 April 1965.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 21 April 1965 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (attrition, inaptitude or unsuitability) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served one year, six months and five days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

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 separation 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 C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he would like to thank you all for reminding him of his imperfections.  He wants to know if you can please advise him of where you all got your perfections from, he would like to have some of it.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is 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 the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.  The reasons discharge proceedings were initiated against the applicant are well documented in the record.  If the applicant can provide any new evidence showing the information in his discharge case file is erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, the Board would be willing to reconsider his request.  In the absence of such evidence, we have no basis on which to favorably consider 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 this application, BC-2003-01925, in Executive Session on 28 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 31 May 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jul 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s response, w/atchs.