RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00370
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to 
honorable.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1963 he was drafted and had a bad left knee so he joined the 
United States Air Force.  Because he had three years of printing 
industry experience, the recruiter told him to sign up for the 
“General” field.  Upon finishing basic training, he received 
orders for Food Service for which he was told to talk to his 
Commanding Officer (CO) about transferring to printing.  

After reporting to his duty station, he talked with his CO who 
told him they did not have printing.  In addition, his CO 
explained he would not get a replacement if he transferred him, 
so he would be a cook.

The applicant explains that he did his job as a cook and while 
his name was brought up in promotion discussions, he believes he 
was passed over for someone who had been there longer.  

He tried to join USAA and was advised that his general discharge 
prevents him from joining.  

He further explains that he was a very good airman, was never 
late and always worked hard from start to finish while he was 
working under his shift leader and first cook.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Jan 
1964.

On 6 Oct 64, he was notified by his commander that he was 
recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability.  The 
specific reasons for his action was the applicant’s inability to 
progress to level three in his career field due to his lack of 
desire and incentive.  He did not meet minimum Air Force 
standards and had an apathetic, indifferent attitude as 
evidenced by statements from members of his organization.  

On 9 Oct 64, an evaluations officer reviewed the applicant’s 
case and explained the effect of his recommendation for a 
general discharge.  The applicant elected against submitting 
additional statements on his behalf.  The evaluations officer 
stated the applicant was extremely immature and did not wish to 
admit to the fact that he will occasionally have to perform 
duties not in accordance with his desires.  The evaluation 
officer recommended that he be given a general discharge.

On 9 Oct 64, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge certificate.
 
On 9 Oct 64, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman 
third class after serving 8 months and 17 days of active 
service. 

On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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.  In the interest of justice, we 
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, 
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend 
granting relief on that basis.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00370 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, not dated. 
						






FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4