RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03224 INDEX CODE: 110.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: 
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was upgraded but his records were never corrected.
In support of his application, applicant provides a personal letter, and a copy of DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report or Transfer or Discharge.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 May 1978 as an airman basic (AB).

On 1 July 1980, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending		he		be	discharged	from		the		Air	Force		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, for apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend constructive effort. The specific reasons for this action was that he received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana; an Article 15 for reporting to work with dirty fatigues and needing a haircut; a Letter		of	Reprimand		for	having	an	unauthorized		weapon		in	his domicile; and an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place	of	duty		and	other	military	infractions.		The	applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge action and was	afforded		 the		opportunity	to	 submit	statements	in	his	own behalf.		The		commander	advi sed		t he		appl i cant		t hat		t he		f i nal deci si on  as  t o  t he  t ype  of		di schar ge  he  woul d  r ecei ve  r est ed  wi t h t he  di schar ge  aut hor i t y.

On 22 July 1980, an evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force and be furnished a general discharge.

On 1 August 1980, the applicant was separated from the Air Force 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, for apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend constructive effort, with a general discharge.   He was served 2 years,
3 months and 1 day of active duty service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial and states the reenlistment (RE) code is correct based on current discharge status.

AFPC/DPSOA's complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his characterization of service from general to honorable. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the applicant's characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/JA recommends denial and states that the applicant has failed in his burden to prove a material error or injustice warranting a correction of his record. Moreover, he has failed to articulate a sufficient basis for setting aside the statue of limitations.

AFPC/JA's complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies	of	the	evaluation	were	forwarded	to	the	applicant	on
9 January 2009 for review and response within 30 days.	As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 recommendations of the offices of primary responsible and adopt their 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.

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- 2008-03224 in Executive Session on 19 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03224:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Oct 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 12 Dec 08. Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Dec 08.
Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 09.

Panel Chair