RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01692
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be corrected to reflect he served two years of service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served two years of military service.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, a letter from SAF/MRBC, a previous DD Form 149, with attachments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 January 1969, the applicant enlisted into the Air Force Reserves (AFRes).  The applicant was discharged from the AFRes on 2 March 1969 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 March 1969, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 3 April 1969, the applicant was notified that he was being discharged under the provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-10 for Mental Hygiene Evaluation.  The specific reason for the discharge action was:

	The Mental Health Evaluation dated 10 March 1969, stated the applicant was referred due to extreme anxiety.  The applicant 
related a history of nervousness and inability to adjust and quitting school in the ninth grade.  He also revealed he had been fired from civilian jobs and was dismissed from Job Corps.  The Mental Health Evaluation also stated the applicant showed a gross immaturity, dependency and inadequacy and they felt he would not be able to adjust to the demands of the Air Force.  They further stated there was no evidence of a psychiatric disorder which would warrant action under the provisions of AFM 35-4.  They recommended the applicant be administratively separated.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and understood why he was being discharged.  The applicant indicated he did not want to submit statements or a rebuttal on his own behalf and he did not desire to have his case evaluated by a field grade officer.

On 4 April 1969, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 15 April 1969, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-10 (separation or release prior to expiration of terms of service for convenience of government – failure to meet minimum requirement for retention in the Air Force.  The applicant served 1 month and 13 days of active duty service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 dated 15 April 1969 reflects Net service - 1 month and 13 days, Other service – 1 month and 9 days, Total – 2 months and 22 days, and Total active service as 1 month and 13 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  They state based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharged regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The applicant did not provide any evidence showing he served additional time in the military.  His DD Form 214 reflects the correct amount of service.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 September 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 its 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 of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflects his total active service.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any documentation showing he served any additional time in the military.  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 is 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-2004-01692 in Executive Session on 29 November 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC 2004-01692 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 3 Aug 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Sep 06.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.