RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01571
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
	  	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his enlistment he was not involved with the civil authorities.  He received an Article 15 and was involved in an accident on  AFB, but was found to be not at fault for the accident.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Air Force on 26 December 1978.  On 10 July 1980, his commander notified him, that he was recommending he be discharged, under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (frequent involvement in matters of a discreditable nature with military authorities), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The basis for the action was that on 10 March 1979, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully using provoking and reproachful words towards an allied Air Force student; on 10 March 1979, he received a Letter of Reprimand for loitering on post (sleeping); on 10 April 1980, he received counseling for failure to annotate AFTO Form 374, Operators Inspection Guide and Trouble Report; on 10 April 1980, received counseling for violation of AFR 35-10; on 10 April 1980, received counseling for vehicle misuse; on 25 May 1980, received counseling concerning a speeding ticket received on base; on 2 June 1980, received 3 Armed Forces Traffic Tickets involving an accident and on 2 June 1980, received an Article 15 for violation of California Vehicle code.  He waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and submitting statements in his behalf.  The base legal office found the case was legally sufficient to support discharge.  He was discharged on 21 July 1980, under the provisions 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 (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served a total 1 year, 6 months and 26 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based on 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.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS 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 4 Jun 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct.  The only other basis upon which to upgrade his discharge would be based on clemency.  However, applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service activities.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon 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 Docket Number BC-2004-01571 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, undated.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 May 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.