RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03508
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told he would not be sent overseas.  He  was  sent  overseas
without his wife, which caused stress on his marriage and  affected
his judgment while serving in  the  military.   He  was  young  and
immature.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20  Jun  77,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman first class.  He was reduced to the grade  of
airman, effective 18 Mar 80, as  a  result  of  punishment  imposed
under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 11 Jun 80, the squadron commander notified the applicant he  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  for  his  apathy,
defective attitude and inability to expend efforts  constructively.
The commander recommended  applicant  receive  an  under  honorable
conditions  (general)  discharge  based  on  the  following:    (1)
Counseled on 16 Oct 79, for failure to go at the time prescribed to
his appointed place of duty;  (2)  Counseled  on  19  Nov  79,  for
failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place  of
duty; (3) Placement on Control Roster for failure to report at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 27 and 28 Nov 79;
(4) Letter of Reprimand on 26 Jan 80, for failure to report at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; (5) Article  15  on
22 Feb 80, for failure to report at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty.  Punishment imposed consisted of suspended
reduction to the grade of airman,  and  30  days  extra  duty;  (6)
Suspension of reduction to the  grade  of  airman  was  vacated  on
21 May 80, for failure to report at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty.

On 11 Jun 80, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge and his understanding  that  if  the  recommendation  for
discharge was approved he could be given  a  discharge  certificate
less favorable than an honorable one.  He  also  acknowledged  that
legal counsel had been made available to assist him.  On 23 Jun 80,
applicant was interviewed by an evaluation officer, who found  that
(1) applicant was unsuitable for further military service based  on
his seven incidents of failure to report at the time prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty; he had not served the USAF to the best
of  his  abilities;  and  he  had  not   responded   favorably   to
rehabilitation efforts by his supervisors; and  (2)  the  applicant
was  a  suitable  candidate  for  rehabilitation.   He  recommended
applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge
and that he be considered for rehabilitation under  the  provisions
of AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.  Applicant indicated he did not desire  to
submit a rebuttal or statements concerning the action  being  taken
or the charges made.

The staff judge advocate reviewed the case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant  receive
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation
and rehabilitation.  On 1 Jul 80, the discharge authority  approved
the separation and directed the  applicant  be  separated  with  an
under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 11 Jul 80,  in  the  grade  of  airman,
under the provisions of  AFM  39-12,  Unsuitable-Apathy,  Defective
Attitude-Evaluation  Officer,  and  received  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He served on  active  duty  for  a
period of 3 years and 22 days.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, 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  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge  authority.   Additionally,  the  applicant  provided  no
evidence or identified any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change
to the character of service.

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

___________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 3 Dec 04 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

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.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing manual and  we  find
no evidence to indicate that applicant’s separation  from  the  Air
Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case
and after thoroughly reviewing  the  documentation  that  has  been
submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do  not  believe
he has  suffered  from  an  injustice.   Therefore,  based  on  the
available evidence of record,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider this application.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.   We  have
considered the applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service  and  the
events which precipitated his  discharge;  however,  based  on  the
evidence of record and  the  absence  of  evidence  concerning  his
activities and accomplishments since leaving the service, we cannot
conclude  that  clemency   is   warranted.    Should   he   provide
documentation concerning his activities since leaving the  service,
the Board may be willing to reconsider his appeal.

___________________________________________________________________

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-
03508 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair