RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01400
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The treatment and discrimination he received at his assignment was an injustice to him.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 June 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 14 February 1984, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for failure to perform assigned duties and progress in his On-The-Job-Training (OJT).  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.  Request for withdrawal of ATCS, number XXXXX, 8 November 1983, with 21 attachments.

	b.  On 19 December 1983, the applicant’s Air Traffic Control specialist (ATCS) certificate was withdrawn.

	c.  A progressive downward trend in his Airman Performance Ratings.

	d.  The applicant received numerous counselings and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) documenting his disrespectful attitude and substandard military bearing.

In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following derogatory information:

	a.  On 28 March 1983, the applicant received a Record of Counseling  (ROC) for tardiness, lack of military bearing, slow progression toward 5-level, lack luster approach to everything, his inability to accept criticism, passing the blame to others.

	b.  On 22 April 1983, the applicant received a ROC for sleeping on duty, being disrespectful to his trainer.

	c.  On 5 May 1983, the applicant received an LOR for using abusive language and being hostile toward a medical officer.

	d.  On 21 June 1983, the applicant received a ROC for wearing nonauthorized prescription glasses in position.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him; and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he verbally counseled the applicant on his duty performance and lack of self drive.  He further stated the applicant failed to make any effort to improve his acceptance of responsibility or to improve his military bearing.  Furthermore, the applicant’s negative attitude and failure to progress in OJT even when provided numerous counseling and constant supervision, plus his failure to accomplish duties properly in the services division while awaiting final action on his ATC certificate, indicated the applicant’s potential for satisfactory service and capacity for rehabilitation was minimal and therefore, he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

On 14 February 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter and that military counsel was made available to assist him; and after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 6 March 1984 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 14 March 1984, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory performance).  He served one year, nine months and five days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report 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.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant 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 18 June 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 29 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide information regarding his post-service activities.  He did not respond (Exhibit F).

On 28 July 2004, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit G).

On 7 and 14 October 2004, the post-service request and FBI report were returned to the Board by the postal service with no forwarding address.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the processing and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, in view of his misconduct while he was on active duty and the apparent continued acts of misconduct after leaving active duty, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  The Board forwarded a request for post-service documentation and the FBI report to the applicant at the address he provided on his application; however, these were returned.  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-2004-01400 in Executive Session on 6 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jun 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jul 04, w/atch.