RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01400
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The treatment and discrimination he received at his assignment was  an
injustice to him.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 June 1982, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 14 February 1984, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's
intent to  recommend  him  for  discharge  for  failure  to  perform
assigned duties and progress in his On-The-Job-Training (OJT).   The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.  Request for withdrawal of ATCS, number  77561,  8  November
1983, with 21 attachments.

      b.  On 19 December 1983, the applicant’s  Air  Traffic  Control
specialist (ATCS) certificate was withdrawn.

      c.  A progressive downward  trend  in  his  Airman  Performance
Ratings.

      d.  The applicant received numerous counselings and  a  Letter
of  Reprimand  (LOR)  documenting  his  disrespectful  attitude  and
substandard military bearing.

In  the  recommendation  for  discharge,  the  commander  cited  the
following derogatory information:

      a.  On 28 March 1983,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of
Counseling  (ROC) for tardiness,  lack  of  military  bearing,  slow
progression toward 5-level, lack luster approach to everything,  his
inability to accept criticism, passing the blame to others.

      b.  On 22  April  1983,  the  applicant  received  a  ROC  for
sleeping on duty, being disrespectful to his trainer.

      c.  On 5 May 1983, the applicant received  an  LOR  for  using
abusive language and being hostile toward a medical officer.

      d.  On 21 June 1983, the applicant received a ROC for  wearing
nonauthorized prescription glasses in position.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for  discharge  action
that he verbally counseled the applicant on his duty performance and
lack of self drive.  He further stated the applicant failed to  make
any effort to improve his acceptance of responsibility or to improve
his  military  bearing.   Furthermore,  the   applicant’s   negative
attitude and failure to progress in OJT even when provided  numerous
counseling and constant supervision, plus his failure to  accomplish
duties properly in the services division while awaiting final action
on his ATC certificate,  indicated  the  applicant’s  potential  for
satisfactory service and capacity for rehabilitation was minimal and
therefore, he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.

On 14 February 1984,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification letter and that military counsel was made available  to
assist him; and after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his
right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted on 6 March  1984  in  which  the  staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the  separation  and  directed  the
applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 14 March 1984, in the  grade  of  airman
first class with a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge,
in accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (Unsatisfactory  performance).   He
served one year, nine months and five days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the  information  and  evidence  provided,
they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
18 June 2004, for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office.

On 29 June 2004, the  Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
information regarding his post-service activities.  He did not respond
(Exhibit F).

On 28 July 2004, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response.   The  applicant  did  not  respond
(Exhibit G).

On 7 and 14 October 2004, the post-service request and FBI report were
returned to the  Board  by  the  postal  service  with  no  forwarding
address.

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's   records,   it   appears   the   processing    and    the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the  applicant’s
overall quality of service, however, in view of his  misconduct  while
he was on active duty and the apparent continued  acts  of  misconduct
after leaving  active  duty,  we  do  not  believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.   The  Board   forwarded   a   request   for   post-service
documentation and the FBI report to the applicant at  the  address  he
provided on his application; however, these were returned.  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-
2004-01400  in  Executive  Session  on  6  October  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                       Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jun 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jul 04, w/atch.



                                        CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                        Panel Chair