RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02868
            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 is a veteran in good standing and believes he should receive a honorable
discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 September 1971, the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 16 May 1972, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Manual 39-12,
Chapter, 2, Section A for  unsuitability.   The  specific  reason  for  the
discharge action was:

      On 17 April 1972,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  by  the  Chief  of
Psychiatric Services with a character and behavior disorder.

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

On 3 May 1972, the applicant  received  an  Article  15  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL) from 28 January 1972 through 24 February 1972  and  25
February 1972 through 5 April 1972.  For this misconduct, the applicant was
reduced to airman basic and forfeiture of $120.00 for one month.

The commander advised applicant of his  right  to  consult  legal  counsel;
present his case to an administrative discharge board;  be  represented  by
legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in his  own  behalf  in
addition to, or in lieu of, the board hearing; or waive  the  above  rights
after consulting with counsel.

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  a  hearing   before   an
administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 17  May  1972  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general  discharge.
The legal review further states  the  applicant’s  commander  believed  the
psychiatric problems  involved  and  the  applicant’s  unresponsiveness  to
counseling it would be highly impractical for  the  applicant  to  enter  a
rehabilitation program.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed  the  applicant
be discharged with a under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 24 May 1972, 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  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 5 months and  24  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  8
October 2004, for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has
been received by this office.

On 19 October  2004,  the  Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation regarding his activities since military service (Exhibit  F).
As of this date, no documentation was provided.

On 3 November 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy  of  the
investigative report for his review and comment.   The  applicant  did  not
respond (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record,  we  are  not  persuaded  to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  The applicant was discharged for  unsuitability  based  on  his
diagnosis of a personality disorder which affected  his  duty  performance.
Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that  the
processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge  were
appropriate  and  accomplished  in  accordance  with  Air   Force   policy.
Therefore, 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.  The Board notes the applicant did not respond  to  the  request
for  documentation   regarding   his   post-service   accomplishments   and
activities.  However, should the applicant provide documentation pertaining
to his post-service accomplishments and activities,  this  Board  would  be
willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration of his request
based on clemency.  Otherwise,  in  view  of  the  foregoing,  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-
02868 in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 04, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair