RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01492
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant did not state any contentions.  His  complete  submission
is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 January 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of  four  years.
Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the  grade  of
airman first class (A1C/E-3).  He received one  performance  report
with an overall promotion recommendation of 6.

On 25 May 1973, the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against  the  applicant  because  of  his  apathy,
defective attitude and inability to expend  effort  constructively,
which prevented him from absorbing military training and developing
into a satisfactory airman.  The specific reasons for the  proposed
action were that:

On or about 12 Feb 73, the applicant received  an  Article  15  for
being disrespectful to a superior officer on or  about  2  Feb  73.
His punishment consisted of suspended reduction  to  the  grade  of
airman, forfeiture of $50 per pay for one month, and restriction to
the limits of the base for 14 consecutive days.

On 2 May 73, he was found wearing an unauthorized wristband and not
wearing  his  required  blue  scarf.   He  was  derelict   in   the
performance of his duties by  negligently  failing  to  maintain  a
proper traffic flow at the vehicle gate.

On 3 May 73, he was found in improper uniform while on duty.  While
on duty, he failed to answer to his name when he was  called  by  a
superior non-commissioned officer.

On or about 6 May 73, he reported for duty in improper uniform,  in
that his uniform was unzipped, he was missing his  nametags  and  a
scarf, and did not have his flashlight.

On 7 May 73, he did not respond  to  his  name  when  called  by  a
superior  non-commissioned  officer,  and  reported  for  duty   in
improper uniform.

On 8 May 73, he was found asleep while posted as a main gate guard.
 He was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed
to check the occupants of a bus entering the base.

On 9 May 73, he reported for duty in improper uniform.

On 10 May 73, he was twice found asleep while  posted  as  a  cargo
gate guard.

On 11 May 73, he reported for duty in need of a shave and was found
loitering while posted as a main vehicle gate guard.

On 12 May 73,  he  refused  to  perform  his  duty  as  a  security
policeman.

After consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  a
hearing before a board of officers and submitted statements in  his
own behalf, stating he felt  like  the  Air  Force  was  trying  to
destroy him and he thought a general discharge was too severe.   He
declined to volunteer for the rehabilitation  program.   On  30 May
1973, the Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  to  be  legally
sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general discharge
without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 1 June 1973, the discharge authority approved a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, without P&R.

On 13 June 1973, applicant was discharged under the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, with service characterized as general  (under  honorable
conditions).  He was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and  29  days
of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS found that the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural  and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  that  the
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing  nor  did  he
provide  any  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of   his   discharge.
Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same  and  his
request be denied.

A complete copy of the 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 11 Jul 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   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 error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s  separation  from
the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of  error  in
this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not  believe
he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 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-2003-01492 in Executive Session on 10 September 2003, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter,  HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 01 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair