RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03513
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his discharge be changed from AFR  39-16  (unsuitability)  to
reflect  that  he  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of   AFR   39-14
(convenience of the government).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although he can provide no proof, review of his  records  will  support  his
request.  He served on numerous  assignments  prior  to  being  assigned  to
Pease AFB, NH.  His records will reveal that he never had a bad  performance
rating prior to his arrival at Pease.  When  it  was  time  for  his  annual
review, an airman in  the  grade  of  E-4  wrote  him  a  poor  review.   He
discovered that only an NCO was authorized to write his appraisal and  after
he brought it to the attention of  the  personnel  office,  the  review  was
rescinded.  The airman who wrote the appraisal went to  the  lieutenant  who
then wrote an unfavorable review.  He complained to the wing commander  that
the lieutenant had  no  knowledge  of  his  job  performance  and  the  wing
commander chastised the lieutenant.  Shortly thereafter he  was  transferred
to a section under the lieutenant's control who  ordered  the  NCO  of  that
section to find a way to get him.  He was assigned to the evening shift  and
was required to remain on standby after his shift.  He was  called  back  to
his duty section several times and accused of leaving  the  section  a  mess
although he did not leave it that way.  Even though he had the most time  in
grade, he was passed over for promotion.  That evening he had dinner  and  a
beer with a few friends who had been promoted.  He was then called and  told
to report to his duty section.  Upon arriving he was asked if  he  had  been
drinking.  Even though he told the  NCO  he  had  only  one  beer  with  his
dinner, the NCO said he thought he  was  intoxicated  and  relieved  him  of
duty.  The lieutenant attempted  to  court-martial  him  but  the  commander
would not allow him to and offered  him  Article  15  punishment,  which  he
accepted.  The lieutenant was bitter because he could not court-martial  him
and took steps to have him discharged as undesirable.  At that point he  was
tired of the harassment and agreed to the discharge  without  a  hearing  on
condition that the discharge be honorable.

In support of his request, applicant provided a  personal  statement  and  a
copy of his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces  Report  of  Transfer  of  Discharge.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's complete  military  personnel  records  are  not  available  for
review, as it appears that they have been lost.   Data  extracted  from  the
available personnel records reflects that  after  serving  in  the  National
Guard he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 May 57.  On 12  Jul  61,  he
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR  39-14,  paragraph  3b,
(attrition discharge for inaptitude or unsuitability).   Subsequent  to  his
discharge, he served in the Air National Guard from 31  Oct  77  through  16
Mar 83.

The applicant requested that he be awarded several additional  medals.   His
records were administratively corrected to include some of  the  medals  and
he was advised that he was not authorized the  remainder.   He  subsequently
withdrew that portion of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  separation  for   the
"convenience of the government" is a general term used  for  both  voluntary
and involuntary separations for many reasons and is not a  narrative  reason
for separation as authorized by Department  of  Defense  directives.   DPPES
cannot discuss the reasons that led to  his  discharge  due  to  a  lack  of
documentation in his records.  He  is  unable  to  furnish  proof  that  his
discharge  was  unjust.   Therefore,  DPPRS  believes  the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation in effect at the time and was within the discretion  of
the discharge authority.  He did not submit any  new  evidence  or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   The
DDPPRS 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 31  Jan
03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


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.  Based upon the presumption  of  regularity
in  the  conduct  of  governmental  affairs  and  without  evidence  to  the
contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was  proper  and  in
compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on  the  available
evidence of record, and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider  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-2002-035513
in Executive Session on 6 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Vaughn Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Dec 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, Jr.
                                   Panel Chair