RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02301
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.06, 110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He no longer holds any religious views that would hinder him from taking part in defending his nation.  He has changed because of biblical clarity from college/study.  He is no longer affiliated with the Society of Friends (Quakers); and no longer believes in pacifism.  He understands his past error in taking the religious stance he once believed to be true.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personnel statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, and a testimonial letter from his Pastor.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16 Oct 81.  He served on continuous active duty and entered his last enlistment on 12 Feb 85.  His highest grade held was sergeant (E-4).

On 5 Jul 88, applicant applied for separation based on conscientious objector status, stating he was a devoted member within the Society of Friends – Quaker Faith and would not participate in war of any nature deemed feasible by any nation on this earth.

On 5 Jul 88, the base chaplain reviewed the case and stated there was no doubt in his mind the applicant deeply and sincerely believed any association with the Air Force was immoral and utterly contrary to his religious beliefs.

On 14 Jul 88, a Mental Health Evaluation was completed on the applicant; no evidence of psychiatric illness or personality disorder was found.

On 27 Jul 88, the squadron section commander reviewed the case file and felt the applicant’s request for conscientious objector status was sincere.

On 28 Sep 88, the investigating officer recommended applicant’s request for conscientious objector status be approved.

On 29 Sep 88, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate found the case file procedurally correct and recommended the findings of the investigating officer be forwarded to the Numbered Air Force.

On 7 Oct 88, the wing commander recommended approval of the request for conscientious objector status; and on 9 Nov 88, the discharge authority approved the request for conscientious objector status and directed applicant be separated with an honorable discharge (conscientious objector).

On 1 Dec 88, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, (Conscientious Objector), and was issued Reenlistment Eligibility code 2N (Conscientious objector whose religious convictions precluded unrestricted assignment).  He was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 19 days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating 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 voluntarily applied for conscientious objector status and has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends he tried to cross-train into a non-combat position, but was told by superiors that being in a critical career field, he could only cross-train into a related critical field, and separation was the thing to do if he had problems with the issues of war.  He was not given adequate religious council.  His new religious convictions were seen as a threat to the unit; because of this he was treated like a disease to be purged.  He realizes the religious convictions he formed while overseas were wrong and misapplied, but would like the opportunity to serve his nation to the best of his ability.  (Exhibit E)

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record to include applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we note the circumstances surrounding applicant’s separation and it appears the narrative reason for his separation was appropriate.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion.  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‑2004-02301 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Aug 04.