RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03464
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 May 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It should be honorable.  His parents signed him in.  He was  suffering
from mental illness when he enlisted.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293,
a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of  a  work  copy  of  a  medical
report.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 August  1978  for  a
period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of  airman  on  14
February 1979 and to the grade of  airman  first  class  on  14 August
1979.  He received two airman performance reports  (APRs)  closing  13
August 1979 and 7 May 1980, in which the overall evaluations were “8,”
and “7.”

On 9 May 1980, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the  Air  Force  due  to  his  failure  to
maintain prescribed standards of military conduct.  The commander  was
recommending applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge based  on  the  following:   He  received  four  letters  of
reprimand (LORs)(on 12 February 1979, for being drunk  and  disorderly
at the NCO Club; on 6 March 1980, for showing disrespect to a Security
Policeman (SP) and for making a verbal statement that was received  as
a threat by the SP; on 24 March 1980 for failure to meet  a  mandatory
appointment with Mental Health;  and  on  24  March  1980,  for  using
marijuana on divers occasions.  He received two  Articles  15  (on  13
March 1979, for being drunk on station and for communicating a threat.
 Punishment consisted of suspended reduction to the  grade  of  airman
basic and 14 days of additional duty.  On 29 April 1980,  for  failure
to go.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and understood that if the recommendation for discharge  was  approved
he could receive less than an honorable discharge.

On 30 May 1980, the applicant was interviewed by an evaluation officer
and advised of his rights to submit a rebuttal and make statements  in
his own behalf.  Applicant did submit statements in  his  own  behalf.
The evaluation officer indicated applicant showed no desire to  change
and did not deserve an honorable discharge.

The  base  legal  office  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 (P&R).

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that  the
applicant be discharged with an under honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 6  June  1980  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   (unsuitable-apathy,
defective attitude - evaluation  officer),  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 22
days on active duty.

On 24 February 1981, the applicant submitted an application to the Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting  his  under  honorable
conditions (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable.   On  18
January 1982, the AFDRB considered all  the  evidence  of  record  and
concluded that the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  and  was  within
the sound discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant
was provided  full  administrative  due  process.   The  board  denied
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable (Tab B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states 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.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 January 2006, 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  note
that the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Furthermore,
he did not provide any facts warranting a change to his  character  of
service.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we
find no  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 March 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-03464 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jan 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair