RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02826
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in the Air Force for almost two years without incident before he was wrongly discharged.

He was unhappy about an incident that occurred and voiced his opinion.

He thought his discharge was honorable until he requested a copy of his discharge a few years ago.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 23 Oct 80 and served for a period of 1 year, 3 months, and 10 days.

On 31 Dec 81, the applicant’s commander notified him of pending discharge actions.  The commander cited the applicant as being unable or unwilling to expend the effort to become a productive member of the Air Force.

On 1 Aug 81, the applicant was counseled for failure to go.  Additionally, he had been counseled on 28 Jun, 10 Jul, and 19 Jul 81 for failure to go.

On 10 Aug 81, the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment for failure to go.

On 2 Sep 81, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to obey a lawful order.  Specifically, he reported for training in street clothes and was ordered to return home and report back in uniform.  He failed to return to duty.

On 23 Oct 81, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to obey an order or regulation.  

On 7 Dec 81, the applicant received an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, for failure to go.  Specifically, he failed to attend a Departure Briefing at the Base Theater at the prescribed time, and without authority, leave from his appointed place of duty, and failed to follow lawful orders to vacuum offices and clean window tracks, all on 4 Dec 81.  In addition, he received a suspended reduction in grade to airman and was ordered to forfeit $75 per month for two months.

On 11 Dec 81, the applicant was charged with failure to repair.  Specifically, he failed to show for a scheduled Missile Procedures Training session.

On 14 Dec 81, he received an Article 15 for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  He also received a reduction in grade to airman basic. 

He was in upgrade training from 26 Jun to 26 Aug 81 but failed his initial upgrade stand board evaluation on 25 Aug 81.  Although he passed his re-check evaluation on 27 Aug 81, he failed a recurring evaluation on 21 Oct 81, at which time he was reentered into upgrade training.  On 14 Dec 81, the applicant was withdrawn from upgrade training due to failure to expend the effort to progress.

On 13 Jan 82, a discharge evaluation officer was assigned.    The evaluation officer reported the applicant attributed many of his problems to not having a car when he initially arrived at the base.  The applicant stated he became depressed and was unable to expend sufficient time and effort on his military responsibilities during Jul and Aug of 1981 because of military pay problems.  In addition, he felt that the only visibility he got was for the things he did wrong, even though he did put forth an honest effort to be a good airman.  The evaluation officer determined the applicant was unsuitable for further military service and not a suitable candidate for rehabilitation.  He further stated the applicant’s military service record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

The applicant acknowledged the evaluation and submitted a statement indicating he wanted out of the Air Force because he felt he put forth a better effort doing something that he enjoyed rather than remaining in the Air Force and being unhappy.  He used taxis and the bus to get around but that became expensive.  Finance added to his problems by shortening his checks or telling him that he was not going to get any money at all.  This caused him to be late or a no-show because he was trying to get it resolved.  In his summary, he stated he felt it would be a waste of the Air Force’s time and money and his if he remained in the Air Force.

On 25 Jan 82, the legal office found the case legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge for apathy and defective attitude.  The discharge authority concurred and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section A, paragraph 2-4c.

The applicant was discharged on 1 Feb 82 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 305985VA5, which is at Exhibit C.  On 2 Oct 07, a request for post-service information and a copy of the FBI report were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF FBI REPORT/POST-SERVICE REQUEST:

The applicant provided a brief overview of his military career and events leading to his discharge.  Since discharge, the applicant states he began a career as an electrical apprentice and worked for over 10 years in the electrical field.  He studied accounting while attending Washington Business School, worked as an accounting clerk, and his most recent position has been with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

He further states there was a point in his life when things got out of control due to substance abuse; however, he has been drug free since 2003 and is now a born-again Christian.  The applicant states he now owns his own business and has included character references for review.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issues 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-2007-02826 in Executive Session on 28 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2007-02826:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  AFBCMR Letter, w/atch, dated 2 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Extract, AFI 36-3208.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 29 Oct 07.