RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00463
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 August 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unfair and he completed education and training requirements.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 29 August 1972.  On 26 April 1973, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged.  The basis for the action was that on 1 March 1973, he was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder best described as passive-aggressive personality; on 2 April 1973, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to maintain his room to the standards of cleanliness and on 6 April 1973, he received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties and being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer. He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 26 April 1973.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  

Applicant was discharged on 27 April 1973, 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-character and behavior disorder-individual evaluation), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served a total of 7 months and 29 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 Mar 05, 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2005-00463 in Executive Session on 4 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 05.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Mar 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
	Exhibit E.	FBI Report, dated 1 Apr 05.

	
	Panel Chair