ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1989-02499
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for  reconsideration,  he  requests  his  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to   an   honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14  April  1969,  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 12 August 1971, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action  against  him  for  Unsuitability.   The  specific
reasons follow:

      On 14 February 1971, the applicant received  a  Letter  of  Counseling
(LOC) for failure to report to duty on 12 and 13 February 1971.

      On 3 May 1971, the applicant was placed on the airman  control  roster
for substandard performance of duty from 30 October 1970 to 19 April 1971.

      On 10 May 1971, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  he did, on  or
about  25  April  1971,  without  authority,   absent   himself   from   his
organization, and did remain  so  until  on  or  about  28  April  1971,  in
violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military  Justice.   He  was  found
guilty by his commander who imposed the  following  punishment:  restriction
to the limits of the Air Base for a period of  14  consecutive  days  and  a
forfeiture of $25.00 per month for two months.

      On 9 June 1971, the applicant  received  a  Report  of  Incident,  for
failure to obey a lawful order and disrespect.

On 13 August 1971, the commander appointed an evaluation officer  to  review
the applicant’s case for discharge.



On 14 August 1971,  the  evaluation  officer  indicated  the  applicant  was
unable to adapt and conform to military life and standards.   The  applicant
was disrespectful to his superiors and possessed no military  bearing.   His
lack of initiative and negative attitude toward the military  prevented  him
from expending efforts constructively in  the  accomplishments  of  the  Air
Force  Mission.   He  could  not  be  relied  upon  and  would  not   accept
responsibility.  In terms of dress and attitude, he gave the  impression  he
was a genuine “hippie.”  He  reported  to  the  evaluation  officer  not  in
uniform but dressed in “hippie” clothes  (i.e.,  sandals,  beads,  headband,
and  over-the-shoulder  purse).   He  believed  in  total  freedom  of   the
individual.  In his words: “Rules and regulations-they  suck!”   He  saw  no
use for the uniform.  He thoroughly disagreed with directives pertaining  to
hair and dress standards.  He saw the  rules  as  undemocratic,  restricting
the individual, and having nothing whatever to do with the manner  in  which
he performed his job.  He frequently  used  four  letter  words  to  express
himself and/or the current  vocabulary  of  the  “hippie”  set.   He  had  a
particular dislike for the “establishment” and for  all  authority  figures.
He told an officer in his squadron:  “your rank doesn’t mean  s---  to  me.”
The applicant’s personnel file indicated there had been  numerous  occasions
when he had been disrespectful to his superiors.  It also  revealed  he  had
been noticeably out of uniform on several occasions in  public  places.   He
was considered to be immature, docile and feminine.   He  claimed  to  be  a
pacifist and to be a user of illegal drugs.  He was  drafted  into  the  Air
Force and wanted to be released.  The  evaluation  officer  recommended  the
applicant be discharged under honorable conditions.

After  being  advised  of  his  rights,  the  applicant  refused  to  accept
probation if offered and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

On 27 August 1971, the Staff Judge Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with a general discharge.

On 28 August 1971, the convening authority approved the applicant’s  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 9 September 1971, the applicant was discharged in the grade  of  sergeant
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the  provisions
of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability).  He served 2 years, 4 months, and  23 days  of
total active duty service.

On 6 June  1989,  the  applicant  submitted  an  application  to  the  Board
requesting his general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded
to an honorable discharge.  On 21 February 1990, the  Board  considered  and
denied the applicant’s request based on untimeliness.  A  complete  copy  of
the Record of Proceedings (ROP) is at Exhibit E.




On 23 September 2003, the applicant submitted a request for  reconsideration
requesting his general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded
to an honorable discharge.  He indicates he did nothing seriously  wrong  to
merit anything other than an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit F.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit G.

On 27 February 2004, the applicant was provided the opportunity  to  respond
to the FBI investigation within 14 days.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to   an   honorable
discharge.  The Board believes  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation,  and  the  Board  does  not  find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that  the
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to change our previous decision in this application.

2.    The  applicant’s  post-service  accomplishments  are  noted;  however,
after  reviewing  the  applicant’s  entire  record  and  the   circumstances
surrounding his discharge, we are not persuaded that  his  discharge  should
be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  In this respect, we  have  considered
the applicant’s overall quality of service, the  events  which  precipitated
the discharge, and his post-service conduct; on balance, we do  not  believe
that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-1989-
02499 in Executive Session on 21 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
                  Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 21 February 1990,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 23 September 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 February 2004.




                       THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                       Chair