RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00097
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told at the time of his discharge that, after a certain period of time, he could apply for and get an honorable discharge, which he would like to do now as he is getting up in years. 

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Aug 59, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.  His highest grade held was airman third class.  The record contains one Airman Performance Report, with an overall rating of “a marginal airman,” which was a referral report.

The records reflect the applicant received two Article 15 punishments:  (1) On 2 Aug 60, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 25 Jul 60; and dereliction of duties on 13, 20, 25 and 26 Jul 60.  Punishment imposed consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic; and (2) On 18 Jan 61, for his dereliction in the performance of his duties on 11 Jan 61.  Punishment imposed consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic.

On 16 Jan 61, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for unsuitability.  The commander recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.  The reasons for the proposed action were:  (1) His supervisors had reported that except for brief periods, his attitude had never been that which was desired in an airman; (2) He had shown very little interest in the on-the-job training (OJT) program which was available to him; (3) On numerous occasions he was late for duty and he was found asleep on duty on another occasion; (4) It was reported he was derelict in his duties; (5) He received a marginal efficiency report; (6) He was reduced to the grade of airman basic for failure to repair and dereliction of duty; (7) He was apprehended on Randolph AFB, TX for speeding; and (8) He was reduced to the grade of airman basic for being derelict in his duties.

On 19 Jan 61, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and that legal counsel had been made available to him.  He waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and chose not to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 8 Feb 61, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 14 Feb 61, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-17, with Separation Designation Number (SDN) 488 (Unfitness), with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 4 days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They stated, in part, that 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 evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

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 careful consideration of the available evidence, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations in effect at the time and we find no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  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‑2005-00097 in Executive Session on 2 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 05.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair