RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02643
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable and he be restored to the rank of E-3.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The justification for his discharge under AFR 39-16 was weak, he was only late for a couple of roll calls, he was young, and had just lost his wife.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 March 1961 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class on 5 May 1961 and the grade of airman second class on 22 December 1961.  He received two airman performance reports (APRs) closing 17 April 1962 and 17 April 1963, in which he was rated as a “Good Airman” on both reports.

On 20 April 1964, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was recommending an administrative discharge, with a characterization of general under honorable conditions, pursuant to the provisions of AFR 39-16, paragraph 4(b), for a personality and behavior disorder.  Additionally, applicant’s records indicated two Article 15 actions dated 11 October 1963, for failure to go, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, which resulted in his demotion from airman second class to airman third class, and a reprimand; and 24 March 1964, for failure to go, in violation of Article 86, which resulted in his reduction to the grade of airman basic and a reprimand.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, however, did not appeal the punishments.

On 28 April 1964, an evaluation officer counseled the applicant about his opportunities to rebut the bases for the action and to submit statements in his own behalf.  Applicant chose not to do so.  Applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as not suffering from any mental or physical conditions that would warrant separation from service under the provisions of AFR 35-4 but the psychiatrist noted applicant, while he could distinguish right from wrong, was manifesting a passive-aggressive immaturity response.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 April 1964 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (personality and behavior disorder), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 3 years, 1 month and 22 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states the applicant has provided no evidence of an error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment actions.  Therefore, they recommend no relief be granted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states 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.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 20 October 2004, applicant was invited to provide information pertaining to activities he has been involved in since leaving the service.  On 27 October 2004, a copy of the FBI Report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 14 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

On 1 November 2004, the applicant submitted a letter stating, he believes his military service record will reflect that up until the months preceding his discharge, he was a credit to the installations he was attached to, received rapid promotions and some decorations as well.  He received his high school GED while in the service and then began to further his education at the University of Arizona in  Tucson while still on active duty and in the first year after discharge.  He is not sure misconduct is an appropriate word to use in describing his troubles, as there was certainly no intent to do anything to hurt the Air Force, his squadron or fellow airmen.  He didn’t offer any excuse at the time and he won’t now, but the fact of the matter is he had lost his wife just prior to the incidents noted in his record with regard to being late for roll calls.  The tardiness was the result of sleep problems he had developed.  He didn’t ask for help, and none was offered.  Being a rather defensive (i.e. frightened) 19-year old, he tried to mask his personal devastation by what he thinks was diagnosed by a base counselor as immaturity and passive aggressive behavior.  Since his discharge in 1964, he has been a credit to society, his local communities, and over the course of the succeeding 40 years has accomplished a myriad of impressive things that some decorum of modesty prevents his going into.  He is also reluctant to include personal character references, as he believes this to be a private matter between himself and the Air Force.  He provided a copy of his resume and a couple of letters of commendation from his employer of the last 20 years, which he hopes will demonstrate his good character and accomplishments.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of 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 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.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 6 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Oct 04.
	Exhibit F.	Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04, AFBCMR, dated
	           20 Oct 04 and 27 Oct 04.
	Exhibit G.	Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.