RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00097
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told at the time of his  discharge  that,  after  a  certain
period of time, he could apply for and get an honorable  discharge,
which he would like to do now as he is getting up in years.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11  Aug  59,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman third class.  The record contains one  Airman
Performance Report, with an overall rating of “a marginal  airman,”
which was a referral report.

The  records  reflect  the  applicant  received  two   Article   15
punishments:  (1) On 2 Aug 60,  for  failure  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about  25  Jul  60;
and dereliction of duties on 13, 20, 25 and 26 Jul 60.   Punishment
imposed consisted of reduction to the grade of  airman  basic;  and
(2) On 18 Jan 61, for his dereliction in  the  performance  of  his
duties on 11 Jan 61.  Punishment imposed consisted of reduction  to
the grade of airman basic.

On 16 Jan 61, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was  recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for
unsuitability.  The commander recommended the applicant  receive  a
general discharge.  The reasons for the proposed action were:   (1)
His supervisors had reported that except  for  brief  periods,  his
attitude had never been that which was desired in an airman; (2) He
had shown very little interest in  the  on-the-job  training  (OJT)
program which was available to him; (3) On  numerous  occasions  he
was late for duty and he  was  found  asleep  on  duty  on  another
occasion; (4) It was reported he was derelict in his duties; (5) He
received a marginal efficiency report; (6) He was  reduced  to  the
grade of airman basic for failure  to  repair  and  dereliction  of
duty; (7) He was apprehended on Randolph AFB, TX for speeding;  and
(8) He was reduced to the grade of airman basic for being  derelict
in his duties.

On 19 Jan 61,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification and that legal counsel had been made available to him.
 He waived his right to a hearing before a board  of  officers  and
chose not to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 8 Feb 61, the
discharge authority approved the separation and directed  that  the
applicant be separated with an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 14 Feb  61,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17,   with   Separation
Designation   Number   (SDN)   488   (Unfitness),   with    service
characterized as under  honorable  conditions  (general).   He  was
credited with 1 year, 6 months,  and  4  days  of  active  military
service.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not submit any evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.   Additionally,  the  applicant   provided   no   facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
for review and response 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.   After  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing regulations in  effect  at  the
time and we find no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  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  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.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
00097 in Executive Session on 2 March 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Clarence C. Long III, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair