RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02863

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he was misadvised by his first  sergeant,  who  encouraged
him to get out.  He was not informed of his options to remain  in  the
military.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
5 July 1972.  The commander recommended the  applicant  be  discharged
under the provisions of AFR  39-12  (Unsuitable  –  Apathy,  Defective
Attitude)  with  service  characterized   general   (under   honorable
conditions) on 26 March 1974 in the grade  of  airman.   He  served  1
year, 8 months and 19 days of total active military service.

On 21 February 1974, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for a general discharge for  defective  attitude  and
inability to expend effort  constructively.   Basis  for  action  was:
Article 15, 4 April 1973, wrongfully giving his identification card to
another person, with intend to deceive, punishment included  reduction
to airman basic (suspended) and forfeiture of  $50  per  month  for  2
months (suspended to 1 month): Article 15, 23  November  1973,  absent
without leave, reduced to airman (suspended), forfeiture of   $75  per
month for two months and seven days correctional custody;  and  Letter
of Reprimand,   24 October 1973, failure to go to prescribed duty  and
disobeying a lawful order on  12  October  1973.   His  commander  and
supervisor  counseled  him  numerous  times  for  unsatisfactory  duty
performance.  Applicant consulted with legal counsel and  was  advised
of his rights.  He was not board entitled but was  interviewed  by  an
investigating officer, on 28 February 1974, who found the  member  was
concerned about facing discharge action, but appeared  “lackadaisical”
and indifferent.  After reviewing the member’s record of  non-judicial
punishment, counselings and his latest Airman Performance Report along
with comments from the member’s commander, the  investigating  officer
recommended a general discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation
(P&R). Applicant did not submit statements on  his  own  behalf.   The
base legal services reviewed the case and found it legally  sufficient
to  support  the   discharge.    Upon   review   of   the   case   and
recommendations, the Discharge  Authority  ordered  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without P&R on 22 March 1974.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation
in file, 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.
Additionally, he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of  the
discharge.  He has not filed a timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 3 October 2003, 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, the Board excused
the 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.  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.  Should he provide  statements  from  community  leaders  and
acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other
evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation,  this  Board  will
reconsider this case based on the new  evidence.   Therefore,  in  the
absence  of  this  documentation,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.    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   issues   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 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-
02863 in Executive Session on 13 November 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
            Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Sep 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.





      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair