RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02646
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After boot camp he reported to McGuire Air Force Base and was assigned as  a
clerk in the orderly room.  He indicates he didn’t  have  the  education  or
skill level to perform his job.  After approximately three  months,  he  was
transferred to the laundry operation where he drove a  delivery  truck.   He
did not make any serious mistakes during either job,  although  he  was  not
very efficient in the clerk’s position.  At the time of  his  discharge,  it
was not explained to him that  his  discharge  would  not  be  an  honorable
discharge nor was it explained to him why he was being discharged two  years
early.

The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 August 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 24 July 1958, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Inaptitude or Unsuitability.   The
specific reasons  were  the  applicant’s  inability  to  absorb  the  skills
necessary to make him an effective airman, his lack of general fitness,  and
his defective attitude.




The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant had been assigned to the squadron since 8 December  1956.   During
that period he worked for several supervisors and they are unanimous in  the
following conclusions:

            a.  The applicant  continually  presented  a  sloppy,  ill  kept
appearance which he was completely reluctant to improve.

             b.  The  applicant  had  a  record  of  habitual  tardiness  in
reporting for  work  and  details.   Extensive  remedial  action  and  extra
training  had  no  appreciable  effect  in  remedying  the   disregard   for
punctuality.

             c.  The  applicant  was  disrespectful  almost   bordering   on
insubordination towards his supervisors, but did not realize,  though  often
corrected, this fault.

            d.  The applicant’s mental capacity was so limited he could  not
grasp the simplest of tasks  without  extensive,  needless  explanation  and
supervision.  He hindered rather than helped when assisting in any task  due
to his lack of comprehension.

            e.  The above four deficiencies were in  themselves  deplorable;
however, the applicant when counseled or corrected for  some  infraction  or
deficiency was completely apathetic.  The commander  further  indicated  the
applicant was evidently so lazy, disinterested and dull that he had no  wish
or motivation for self.

            f.  The applicant was identified  some  15-months  before  as  a
possible  unsuitable  airman.   At  that   time   he   was   an   apprentice
administrative helper working in the  squadron  mail  room.   He  proved  so
unreliable and lackadaisical that it was necessary to remove  him  from  the
job.  He was then placed in the unit supply section and a waiver of  project
guidance was secured to reclassify him to Air Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)
64010, in the hope  that  a  change  of  supervisor  and  duty  would  prove
beneficial.  However, the applicant remained true to type  and  the  routine
of his job proved far beyond his capabilities.  As a  final  effort  he  was
placed in the linen control section as a general helper and  sheet  counter.
He failed at this menial  task  miserably.   He  had  been  the  subject  of
continual counseling by  his  supervisors  and  superiors  relative  to  his
substandard  performance,  appearance,  and  attitude.   The  applicant  was
incapable of meeting the requirements of his  job  or  of  adapting  to  Air
Force life.

An Evaluation Officer’s Report,  dated  10  September  1958,  indicates  the
applicant should be discharged due to  lack  of  motivation  for  performing
military service, defective attitude and inability to  expend  effort.   The
applicant was advised he could submit a rebuttal  but  declined  to  do  so.
The applicant was the  product  of  a  broken  home  and  had  been  without
parental supervision and guidance since the age of 12.  He enlisted  in  the
Air Force to  escape  family  problems.   His  ambition  was  to  become  an
automobile mechanic and make the service a career.  However, due to his  low
mechanical aptitude, he was placed in the administrative career field.   The
applicant had been unable to adjust to the demands  of  military  life,  and
had no interest in remaining in the service or attempting to progress  to  a
skilled level in any career field.  He was unable to complete  menial  tasks
without close supervision to insure he remained on the job.   There  was  no
benefit to the Air Force in retaining the applicant since his  actions  were
due to lack of motivation and defective attitude to  such  a  degree  as  to
render him unsuitable for further military  service.   His  retention  would
have  continuously  created  a  rehabilitation  problem  for  his   squadron
commander.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s  general  discharge  on  19
September 1958.

The applicant was discharged on 26 September 1958, in the  grade  of  airman
third class with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under
the provisions of AFR 39-16.  He served two years and  one  month  of  total
active military service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, were unable to identify with an arrest record  on
the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating 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 also within the discretion of the discharge authority and  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 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 September 2005, 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.




On 27 September 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  F).   As  of  this  date,  no
response as been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopts its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence to  the  contrary,
the Board presumes responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.   Therefore,  the
Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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 30 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-02646 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 August 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 9 September 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 September 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 September 2005.




                       THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                       Chair