RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01125
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was conflict with him and his  immediate  supervisor  due  to  a
difference in personalities.

He is presently in school to become a minister and this  is  something
in his past that needs to be cleaned up.

Applicant's complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March  1977  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 10 June 1980, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to
recommend he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFM
39-12, (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude).

The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge:

      a.  On 15  May  1979,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of
Counseling for reporting late for duty and  his  noncompliance  with
AFR 35-10 grooming standards.

      b.  The applicant on 20 September 1979, received a  Record  of
Counseling for failing to show proper respect and courtesy to his co-
workers.

      c.  On 19 December 1979, the applicant received  a  Record  of
Counseling  for  reporting  late  for  duty  and  substandard   duty
performance.

      d.  On 22 January  1980,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  the
Control Roster for continued financial irresponsibility.

      e.  The  applicant  received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 25
January 1980 for going on leave with the knowledge that he would not
return from leave before the expiration of his leave period.

      f.  On 1 February 1980,  the  applicant  received  a  LOR  for
reporting late for duty on 24 and 30 January 1980.

      g.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 25 March 1980  for
being disrespectful in language towards a  superior  NonCommissioned
Officer (NCO) on 7 March 1980, for going from his appointed place of
duty without proper authority on 7 March 1980 and for  wrongful  use
of provoking words  on  4  March  1980.   For  this  misconduct  his
punishment consisted  of  reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman  and
forfeiture of $200.00 per  month  for  two  months.   The  applicant
appealed the Article 15 and on 4 April 1980,  the  appeal  authority
advised him that  that  portion  of  the  punishment  in  excess  of
reduction to the grade of airman and the forfeitures of $100.00  per
month for two months was suspended until 1 October 1980.

An AFM 39-12 evaluation  was  conducted  on  7  July  1980  and  the
evaluation officer counseled the applicant  on  the  nature  of  the
action and advised him of his right to submit statements in his  own
behalf or waive the above rights in writing.  The evaluation officer
recommended the applicant receive a general  discharge  and  not  be
considered for rehabilitation.

On 7 July 1980, after consulting with the  evaluation  officer,  the
applicant invoked his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 11 July  1980  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

A resume of applicant's performance reports follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                  3 Mar 78              7
                 20 Ju1 78              8
                 13 Mar 78              9
                 27 Jun 79        Letter of Evaluation
                 28 Jan 80              8
                  9 Jun 80              6

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 15 July 1980.

Applicant was discharged on 17 July 1980, in  the  grade  of  airman
with  an  under  honorable  conditions   (general)   discharge,   in
accordance with AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude.)
 He served a total of 3 years,  4  months  and  13  days  of  active
service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Nor has he provided any facts warranting an upgrade of
his discharge.  Based on the information and  evidence  provided  they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
May 2003, for review and response.  On 9 June 2003,  the  Board  staff
advised the applicant  of  the  opportunity  to  submit  post  service
information.  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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with
Air Force policy.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

4.     Although   the   applicant   did   not   specifically   request
consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to
warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.
 Applicant has not provided information on his post-service activities
and accomplishments after being provided  an  opportunity  to  present
such information to the Board.  Therefore, based on  the  evidence  of
record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.

5.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01125 in Executive Session on 26 August 2003 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 03.




                                        JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                        Panel Chair