RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00046

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Consideration should be given because of his spouse’s  increased  risk
pregnancy at the time of discharge, which required her to move back to
Arizona  from  his  duty  station  at   Seymour-Johnson   AFB.    This
circumstance was the catalyst  for  actions,  which  resulted  in  his
general under honorable conditions discharge.

Request consideration be given to his extensive contribution since his
discharge as a defense contractor for seven years, with a  variety  of
companies, including Comarco Inc., Verify Inc. and Boeing Inc. at  the
China Lake Navel Weapons Center in Ridgecrest, CA.   In  addition,  he
held a Secret security clearance during this period of time.  He feels
that his efforts and contributions on a variety of  critical  projects
and programs while at  China  Lake  Navel  Weapons  Center  more  than
compensates for any offense  or  shortcoming  which  resulted  in  his
discharge of September 5, 1980.

In support of  his  request,  he  submits  a  copy  of  DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal  From  the  Armed
Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
30 March 1979.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged  under  the
provision of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable-Apathy, Defective  Attitude))  with
service characterized as general (under  honorable  conditions)  on  5
September 1980 in the grade of airman.  He served 1 year, 5 months and
6 days of total active military service.

On 26 August 1980, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was recommending applicant for a discharge  for  failure  to  maintain
prescribed standards of military deportment.  Reason for  the  action:
14 August 1979, he was counseled and verbally  reprimanded  for  being
late for duty  on  13  August  1979;            5  November  1979,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to have his dormitory
room in inspection order; Article 15, 28 January 1980, for failure  to
go; counseled on 14 February 1980, for failing his Career  Development
course test; and Article 15, 11 August 1980, for being absent  without
leave from 4 July to 1 August 1980.  Applicant consulted with counsel,
submitted an unconditional waiver to an administrative discharge board
hearing, and  did  not  submit  statements.   The  base  legal  office
reviewed the case and found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support  the
discharge.  They recommended a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation (P&R).  The Discharge Authority approved the separation
and ordered a general discharge without P&R on 2 September 1980.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  The applicant did not submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge proceedings.  Additionally, he provided no facts  warranting
an upgrade of the discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he  is
sure that the Air Force’s intentions are to deny his request and  keep
things the way they are.  Fortunately, his discharge has not  affected
his ability to get work, even in the defense industry,  even  security
clearances.  Interesting, he can get a security  clearance  without  a
hitch,  which  means  the  country  trusts  him   handling   sensitive
information, but the Air  Force  STILL  considers  him  “Unsuitable  -
Apathetic, and having a Defective Attitude.”  If changes are not  made
then he will seek a court order to have his DD Form 214 sealed so that
it will not be available after he is deceased.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at 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 that failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting an  upgrade  in  his
discharge.   The  records  reflect  that   the   commander   initiated
administrative actions  based  on  information  he  determined  to  be
reliable and that administrative actions were  properly  accomplished.
The  applicant  was  afforded  all  rights  granted  by  statute   and
regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented  that  the
commander abused his discretionary authority  when  he  initiated  the
discharge action, and since we find no abuse  of  that  authority,  we
find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  The  only  other
basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of  his  discharge  would  be
clemency.  However, applicant  has  failed  to  provide  documentation
pertaining to his post service conduct.   Therefore, in the absence of
this documentation, 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 a 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-2003-
00046 in Executive Session on 15 July 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
                 Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 19 May 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated.




      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair