RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01587
            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:

He believes his discharge should be upgraded based on  the  merits  of  his
years of faithful service with the government and  his  accomplishments  to
civilian service and his community.  He hopes that he won’t be punished for
a mistake he made as a teenager.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 October 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)
as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 7 January 1977, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual  (AFM)
39-12, Section A, paragraph 2-4c, apathy, defective attitude and  inability
to expend effort constructively.  The specific reasons  for  the  discharge
action were:

      a.    On 9 April 1975, the applicant received a Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR) for reporting late for duty on 22 March, and 3 and 8 April 1975.

      b.    On 17 December 1975, the applicant received an LOR  for  a  bad
room inspection on 12 December 1975.

      c.    On 9 January 1976, the applicant received an LOR for failure to
go.

      d.    On 3 September 1976, the applicant was placed on absent without
leave (AWOL) status and remained in this status until 16 September 1976.

      e.    On 8 September 1976, a memorandum for  record  was  established
due to the applicant’s unsatisfactory condition of his dormitory room.

      f.    On 17 September 1976, the applicant received an Article 15  for
AWOL.

      g.    On  12  October  1976,  the  applicant  received  a  letter  of
admonishment (LOA) for failing to report to duty  on  27  and  30 September
1976.

      h.    On 16 December 1976, the applicant was counseled on failing  to
report for duty on time and taking excessive time  to  accomplish  personal
affairs.

      i.    The applicant received  a  substandard  rating  on  his  Airman
Performance Report (APR) for the period 26 April 1976 to 20 December  1976,
with an overall rating of “4.”

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.

On 7 January 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification
letter and that military counsel was made  available  to  assist  him;  and
after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit  a
statement.

On 12 January 1977, the evaluation officer completed the evaluation  report
and recommended the applicant be discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with  a
general discharge.

A legal review was conducted on 24 January 1977 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 discharge and directed  the  applicant
be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 26 January 1977, the applicant was separated from the  Air  Force  under
the provisions 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), with  a  general
discharge.  He served 2 years, 3 months and 25 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data  furnished  they  were
unable to locate an arrest record (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  11
June 2004, for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the  evidence
of  record,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded  to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  Based on the documentation  in  the  applicant's  records,  it
appears the processing of the discharge and the  characterization  of  the
discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with  Air  Force
policy.  The Board has  considered  the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of
service and in view of the numerous  instances  of  misconduct  while  the
applicant was on active duty, on balance, does not believe
clemency  is  warranted.   Although  the  applicant  has   provided   some
statements  concerning  post-service  conduct,  the  Board   finds   these
statements insufficient to warrant an upgrade  of  his  discharge  on  the
basis of clemency.  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  would  be
willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.   Therefore,
the Board does not recommend approval based on  the  current  evidence  of
record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2004-01587 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair