RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00079

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He just wanted out of the Air Force no matter what.  During this time, his mother was having a nervous breakdown and his dad was no longer around.  In addition, this upgrade would allow him to attend college.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of DD Form 293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 30 July 1971 for a term of 4 years.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provision of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability-character-behavior disorder), and a received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 11 December 1972.  He served 1 year, 3 months, and 21 days of total active military service.

Applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for being diagnosed as having a character-behavior disorder, immature personality type.  Basis for the recommendations were:  On 11 May 1972, he received an Article 15 for being absent without leave for a period of 18 days.  On 15 June 1972, he received an Article 15 for being absent without leave for a period of 2 days. From  15 April 1972 to 5 May 1972, the applicant was confined by civilian authorities for possession of marijuana.  Records indicate the applicant had two additional instances of failure to repair.  He was counseled on the proper wear of the uniform and being late to work.  

On 17 October 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of the recommendation for discharge.  On 15 November 1972, an Evaluation Officer was appointed to evaluate the case and make a recommendation.  The Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant concerning the action pending and explained his rights.  Applicant acknowledged that he understood and signed a statement that he did not elect to rebut the discharge action and did not elect to submit any statement in his behalf.  The Evaluation Officer agreed with the commander’s recommendation that the applicant be separated for unsuitability and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The base legal officer reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  

On 23 February 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered a request for an upgrade of his discharge, however, the AFDRB denired his request.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Applicant did not submit new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 March 2004 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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  The only other basis upon which to upgrade this discharge would be based on clemency.  However, the applicant failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities.  Should he provide documentary evidence pertaining to his post-service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal.  In the absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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-2004-00079 in Executive Session on 13 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Feb 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.

	Panel Chair