RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01835
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no error.  He was told the discharge  could  be  upgraded  to
honorable after one year.

In support of the appeal, applicant provided a copy  of  his  DD  Form
214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 June 1971 for  a
period of four years.  Following his successful  completion  of  basic
military and technical training, he  was  assigned  to  duties  as  an
administrative specialist.  He was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class on 2 February 1972.  He received one performance
report, for the period 21 June 1971 to 7 May 1972, a referral  report,
in which the overall evaluation was “2.”

On 27 March 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the  applicant
under Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to obey a lawful order to register
his privately owned  vehicle.   The  applicant  received  a  suspended
reduction in grade to airman (E-2), was ordered to perform 14 days  of
extra duty and was  reprimanded.   For  failing  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his  appointed  place  of  duty  on  24  May  1972,  the
suspension of the reduction in grade was vacated and the applicant was
reduced in grade to airman on 5 June 1972.

On 5 June 1972, the commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending a  general  discharge  for  his  defective  attitude  and
apathy.  Reasons for the action included failure to  report  to  work,
failure to  report  to  work  on  time,  failure  to  attend  required
training, defective  attitude  toward  his  job  performance  and  his
superiors, disobeying a direct order from a superior, and  failure  to
keep his room in the barracks in inspection order.  On 27 March  1972,
he had received an Article 15 for driving  his  car  on  base  without
insurance and an invalid registration.  He received 14 days  of  extra
duty and a suspended demotion to airman.  However,  after  being  late
for duty five times in less than a  month  and  failing  to  take  the
initiative in achieving acceptable job training and  performance,  the
suspended demotion was vacated and he  was  reduced  to  airman.   The
commander indicated that the applicant had been counseled and verbally
reprimanded  numerous  times  without  improvement.    The   commander
appointed  an  evaluation  officer  and   applicant   was   personally
interviewed on 14 June 1972.  The applicant was advised of  his  right
to submit a rebuttal.  Based on review of the facts and interview with
the applicant, the evaluator recommended a general  discharge  and  no
further rehabilitation.  The applicant  submitted  statements  to  his
commander.  The base legal services reviewed the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support the discharge.  An assistant staff judge
advocate  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 15 June 1972.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of  airman,  was  discharged
from the Air Force on 15 June 1972 under the provisions of  AFR  39-12
(Unsuitable -  Apathy,  Defective  Attitude)  and  received  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He  was  credited  with  11
months and 24 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the Discharge  Authority.   The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge  processing.   Therefore,   DPPRS   recommends   denial   of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 July 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response 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.  A short period of time after his
entry on active duty, the applicant began to accrue a record of  minor
disciplinary infractions against the good order and discipline of  the
service.  There is no indication in the record that the information in
the  discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,   that   the   applicant’s
substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused  their
discretionary  authority.   The  applicant  states  he  was  told  his
discharge could be upgraded after one year.  However, the  passage  of
time, alone, is not sufficient to warrant the correction to the record
he seeks.  In the absence of any evidence by the applicant showing his
discharge was erroneous or unjust, or that he has  made  a  successful
post service adjustment, thereby warranting clemency in his  case,  we
have no basis on which to favorably consider his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
BC-2003-01835:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Jul 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.





                             JOSEPH A. ROJ
                             Panel Chair