RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00079

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He just wanted out of the Air Force no matter what.  During this time,
his mother was having a nervous breakdown and his dad  was  no  longer
around.  In addition, this upgrade would allow him to attend college.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of DD Form
293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed
Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
30 July 1971 for a term of 4 years.  The applicant  was  involuntarily
discharged  under  the  provision  of  AFM   39-12,   Separation   for
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for  Discharge  for
the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation  Program
(unsuitability-character-behavior disorder), and a received a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge on 11 December 1972.  He served
1 year, 3 months, and 21 days of total active military service.

Applicant was notified by his commander that he was  recommending  him
for  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  for  being
diagnosed  as   having   a   character-behavior   disorder,   immature
personality type.  Basis for the  recommendations  were:   On  11  May
1972, he received an Article 15 for being absent without leave  for  a
period of 18 days.  On 15 June 1972, he received  an  Article  15  for
being absent without leave for a period of 2 days. From  15 April 1972
to 5 May 1972, the applicant was confined by civilian authorities  for
possession of marijuana.   Records  indicate  the  applicant  had  two
additional instances of failure to repair.  He was  counseled  on  the
proper wear of the uniform and being late to work.

On 17 October 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of the
recommendation for discharge.  On  15  November  1972,  an  Evaluation
Officer was appointed to evaluate the case and make a  recommendation.
The Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant concerning the action
pending and explained his  rights.   Applicant  acknowledged  that  he
understood and signed a statement that he did not elect to  rebut  the
discharge action and did not elect to  submit  any  statement  in  his
behalf.   The  Evaluation  Officer   agreed   with   the   commander’s
recommendation that the applicant be separated for  unsuitability  and
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The  base
legal officer reviewed the case and found  it  legally  sufficient  to
support a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 23 February 1978, the Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered a request for an upgrade of  his  discharge,  however,  the
AFDRB denired his request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  and  stated  that  based   upon   the
documentation on file in the master personnel records,  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of  the
discharge authority. Applicant did not submit new evidence or identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing.
He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 5 March 2004 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 an error or injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  We find
no impropriety in the characterization of the  applicant's  discharge.
It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in
effecting the separation, and we do 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.
We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances.  The only  other  basis  upon  which  to  upgrade  this
discharge would be based on clemency.  However, the  applicant  failed
to provide documentation pertaining to  his  post-service  activities.
Should he provide documentary evidence pertaining to his  post-service
activities, we would be willing to  reconsider  his  appeal.   In  the
absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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-2004-
00079 in Executive Session on 13 April 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.




      MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
      Panel Chair