RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00659 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would have made the Air Force a career if he was given a different job and his trainer would have taken his job more seriously. After basic military training (BMT), he went straight to his duty station for on-the-job training (OJT) instead of technical school and was never given a chance to receive his 3-skill level. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jun 71. On 20 Sep 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Conditions for Unsuitability. The specific reasons for the action were apathy, defective attitudes, or inability to expend effort constructively. Additionally, it was noted that the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful in language to a superior non-commissioned officer and a Letter of Reprimand for failure to repair. He was provided counseling on numerous occasions for substandard duty performance and he twice failed his Aptitude and Knowledge Test (AKT). On 20 Sep 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and on 22 Sep 72, he waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 25 Sep 72, the case was found legally sufficient and, on 28 Sep 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 2 Oct 72, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with one year, four months, and one day of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant acted in a manner inconsistent with Air Force standards of good order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of integrity. Because of the applicant’s apathy, defective attitude, inability to expend effort constructively, and limited potential for successful completion of further service, the Air Force had little to gain in retaining him. Additionally, the applicant has not filed a timely petition. It has been more than 30 years since the applicant’s discharge and he has not provided any justification as to why the alleged error or injustice was not addressed within three years from the date of his discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 6 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 in judging the merits of this case; however, we find no evidence or an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. It appears the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority. No evidence has been presented to indicate otherwise. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the events which precipitated the discharge. In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were followed. While the Board may consider upgrading the applicant’s discharge under this broader mandate, the applicant has provided no documentary evidence for our review to determine whether or not his contributions to his community since his service could cause us to conclude that his post-service accomplishments are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. However, should the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service transition, including supporting statements from friends, colleagues, and community leaders, we would reconsider the applicant’s request based on new evidence. However, in the absence of such evidence, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00659 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00659 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. Panel Chair 4