RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03089
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has applied for a job overseas and, in order to be  considered  for
the position, he needs an honorable discharge.

No supporting documents were  submitted  with  his  application.   The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
28 June 1971.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  sergeant
(E-4), with an effective date and date of  rank  of  1 December  1974.
Due to the  vacation  of  applicant’s  Noncommissioned  Officer  (NCO)
status on 23 October 1981, his grade  was  changed  from  sergeant  to
senior airman.

On 5 October 1982, the applicant received  notification  that  he  was
being recommended for discharge due to his failure to perform assigned
duties properly.  The reasons for this action are as follows:

- Four Records of Individual Counseling (TAC Form 27):
    14 Jul 80 - using profanity and poor attitude
    13 Oct 81 - poor attitude and treatment of customers
    23 Oct 81 - failure to use proper NCO judgment
    25 Jun 82 - poor dress, appearance and job performance

- Two Letters of Reprimand, dated 13 August 1980 and 29 June 1982, for
failure to go.

- An Article 15,  dated  21  January  1981,  for  dereliction  in  the
performance of his duties.

- Placed on the Control Roster for poor judgment and negative attitude
on 23 October 1981; and, for poor duty performance on 11 June 1982.

- A Letter of Complaint, dated 27 August 1982, for being disrespectful
toward a customer.

On  5  October  1982,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of   the
notification letter.  He consulted military legal counsel and declined
to submit any written statements in his behalf.  The base legal office
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to   support
separation.  On 21 October 1982, the discharge authority approved  the
recommended separation and directed that the  applicant  be  issued  a
general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant received a general discharge on 28  October  1982  under
the provisions of AFM  39-12  (unsatisfactory  performance).   He  had
completed a total of 11 years, 4 months and 1 day and was  serving  in
the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 2 November 2004, that, on  the  basis  of
data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the  application  be  denied.   DPPRS  states
that, 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  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting
a change to his character of service.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  indicated   his
disagreement with the reasons  for  his  discharge.   The  applicant’s
complete submission is at Exhibit E.

In response to the AFBCMR letter of 2 November 2004  concerning  post-
service information, the applicant submitted three character reference
letters, which are at 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  error  or  injustice.   We   thoroughly   reviewed
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge and we  find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of
applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting the separation.  Other than his own
assertions, the applicant did not provide persuasive evidence  showing
the  information  in  the  discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  his
substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused  their
discretionary authority.  We, therefore, conclude that  the  discharge
proceedings were proper and  characterization  of  the  discharge  was
appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence  to  warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant's overall quality of service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence  related  to  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 January 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03089.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 04.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Oct 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, postmarked 21 Oct 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 04.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, postmarked 3 Dec 04,
               with character reference letters.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair