RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02301
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.06, 110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He no longer holds any religious views that would hinder  him  from
taking part in defending his nation.  He  has  changed  because  of
biblical clarity from college/study.  He is  no  longer  affiliated
with the Society of Friends (Quakers); and no  longer  believes  in
pacifism.  He understands his past error in  taking  the  religious
stance he once believed to be true.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided   a   personnel
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, and a testimonial letter from
his Pastor.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air
Force on 16 Oct 81.   He  served  on  continuous  active  duty  and
entered his last enlistment on 12 Feb 85.  His highest  grade  held
was sergeant (E-4).

On  5  Jul  88,  applicant  applied   for   separation   based   on
conscientious objector status, stating  he  was  a  devoted  member
within the  Society  of  Friends  –  Quaker  Faith  and  would  not
participate in war of any nature deemed feasible by any  nation  on
this earth.

On 5 Jul 88, the base chaplain reviewed the case and  stated  there
was no doubt  in  his  mind  the  applicant  deeply  and  sincerely
believed any association with the Air Force was immoral and utterly
contrary to his religious beliefs.

On 14 Jul 88, a Mental  Health  Evaluation  was  completed  on  the
applicant;  no  evidence  of  psychiatric  illness  or  personality
disorder was found.

On 27 Jul 88, the squadron section commander reviewed the case file
and felt the applicant’s request for conscientious objector  status
was sincere.

On 28 Sep 88, the  investigating  officer  recommended  applicant’s
request for conscientious objector status be approved.

On 29 Sep 88, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate  found  the  case  file
procedurally  correct  and  recommended   the   findings   of   the
investigating officer be forwarded to the Numbered Air Force.

On 7 Oct 88, the wing commander recommended approval of the request
for conscientious objector status; and on 9 Nov 88,  the  discharge
authority approved the request for  conscientious  objector  status
and directed applicant be separated  with  an  honorable  discharge
(conscientious objector).

On 1 Dec 88, the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, (Conscientious Objector), and  was  issued
Reenlistment Eligibility  code  2N  (Conscientious  objector  whose
religious convictions precluded unrestricted assignment).   He  was
credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 19  days  of  active  military
service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial,
stating based on 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.
The applicant voluntarily applied for conscientious objector status
and has not submitted any evidence  or  identified  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He  provided
no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his  narrative   reason   for
separation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends  he  tried  to  cross-train  into  a  non-combat
position, but was told by superiors that being in a critical career
field, he could only cross-train into a related critical field, and
separation was the thing to do if he had problems with  the  issues
of war.  He was not given  adequate  religious  council.   His  new
religious convictions were seen as a threat to the unit; because of
this he was treated like a disease to be purged.  He  realizes  the
religious convictions he  formed  while  overseas  were  wrong  and
misapplied, but would like the opportunity to serve his  nation  to
the best of his ability.  (Exhibit E)

___________________________________________________________________

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
reviewing the evidence of record to include applicant’s submission,
we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In this respect,  we  note  the  circumstances
surrounding applicant’s separation and  it  appears  the  narrative
reason for his  separation  was  appropriate.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree with  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion.  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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02301 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Aug 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair