RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01587
		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:

He believes his discharge should be upgraded based on the merits of his years of faithful service with the government and his accomplishments to civilian service and his community.  He hopes that he won’t be punished for a mistake he made as a teenager.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 October 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 7 January 1977, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12, Section A, paragraph 2-4c, apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.	On 9 April 1975, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for reporting late for duty on 22 March, and 3 and 8 April 1975.

	b.	On 17 December 1975, the applicant received an LOR for a bad room inspection on 12 December 1975.

	c.	On 9 January 1976, the applicant received an LOR for failure to go.

	d.	On 3 September 1976, the applicant was placed on absent without leave (AWOL) status and remained in this status until 16 September 1976.

	e.	On 8 September 1976, a memorandum for record was established due to the applicant’s unsatisfactory condition of his dormitory room.

	f.	On 17 September 1976, the applicant received an Article 15 for AWOL.

	g.	On 12 October 1976, the applicant received a letter of admonishment (LOA) for failing to report to duty on 27 and 30 September 1976.

	h.	On 16 December 1976, the applicant was counseled on failing to report for duty on time and taking excessive time to accomplish personal affairs.

	i.	The applicant received a substandard rating on his Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 26 April 1976 to 20 December 1976, with an overall rating of “4.”

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.

On 7 January 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter and that military counsel was made available to assist him; and after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit a statement.

On 12 January 1977, the evaluation officer completed the evaluation report and recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge.

A legal review was conducted on 24 January 1977 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 discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 26 January 1977, the applicant was separated from the Air Force 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 (unsuitability), with a general discharge.  He served 2 years, 3 months and 25 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (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 11 June 2004, for review and response.  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.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The Board has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in view of the numerous instances of misconduct while the applicant was on active duty, on balance, does not believe 
clemency is warranted.  Although the applicant has provided some statements concerning post-service conduct, the Board finds these statements insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.  Should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board does not recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-01587 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 04.