RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00753
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX            COUNSEL:  None
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  15 SEPTEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and grew up without parental guidance.  He  did  not  know  his
attitude was defective.  He has since been diagnosed with anxiety and  acute
depression.  He would like the Board to consider his mental disability  when
considering his case.

Applicant submits no supporting documentation.   Applicant’s  submission  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 September 1979, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade  of  airman  basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  4  years.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman  first  class  (E-3),  with  a
date of rank of 28  November  1980.   He  received  two  Airman  Performance
Reports closing 21 September 1980  and  22  September  1981,  in  which  the
overall evaluations were 6 and 2, respectively.

On 19 August 1980, he  received  a  Record  of  Counseling  for  substandard
performance.

On 23 September 1980, he received a Record of Counseling  for  attitude  and
bearing.

On 17 October 1980, he was placed on  the  control  roster  for  substandard
performance.

On 26 January 1981, he received a Record of Counseling for failure to go  to
his appointed place of duty.
On 2 June 1981, he received a Record of Counseling for  failure  to  go  and
substandard duty performance.

On 4 June and 18 August 1981, he received Records of Counseling for  failure
to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 10 June 1981, he was charged with failure to go to  his  appointed  place
of duty.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed.  He received  a  reduction  to  airman
basic and $100 per month for two months forfeiture  of  his  pay  (suspended
until 31 October 1981 unless  sooner  vacated).   On  26  August  1981,  his
commander vacated the suspended sentence for failure to go to his  appointed
place of duty.

On  23  September  1981,  the  applicant’s  commander  initiated   discharge
proceedings against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12,  paragraph  2-4c,
Apathy, Defective Attitude.  The applicant was notified of  his  commander’s
recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.   He  was
advised of his rights, consulted counsel, and waived  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.  In a  legal  review  of  the  discharge  case
file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient  and  recommended
that he be discharged from the  Air  Force  with  a  general  discharge  and
concurred with the commander and evaluation officer that the  applicant  not
be  considered  for  probation  and   rehabilitation.    Subsequently,   the
discharge authority directed the applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
discharge.  He served 2 years, 1 month, and 2 days on active duty.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  FBI  provided  a   copy   of   an
Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, they conclude  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any  errors  or
injustices in the discharge processing.  The  AFPC/DPPRS  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.   JA  states  the  applicant’s
record contains abundant documentation of his deficient attitude,  poor  job
performance, and misconduct that  resulted  in  his  involuntary  separation
from the Air Force.  JA advises there is  no  error  or  injustice  and  the
discharge characterization was appropriate.  The AFPC/JA  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 April and 17 May 2006, a copy of the Air  Force  evaluations  and  FBI
report were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As  of  this
date, this office has not received a response.

___________________________________________________________________

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
applicant’s request and the available  evidence  of  record,  we  see  no
evidence that  would  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his  characterization  of
service.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant  has  provided  no
evidence which would lead us to  believe  that  the  information  in  his
discharge case file  is  erroneous,  that  his  substantial  rights  were
violated, or that his commanders abused  their  discretionary  authority.
In addition,  an  FBI  record  provided  information  pertaining  to  the
applicant  which  indicates  recent  involvement  with  law   enforcement
authorities.  In view of the above and  in  the  absence  of  substantive
evidence  by  the  applicant  attesting  to  a  successful   post-service
adjustment in the  years  after  his  last  involvement  with  civil  law
enforcement authorities, we are not inclined to extend clemency  in  this
case.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  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 1 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
           Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
           Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary  evidence  was  considered  for  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2006-00753:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 06.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Mar 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Apr 06.
     Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 06
                 and 17 May 06.
     Exhibit F.  FBI Report, dated 8 May 06.





                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                  Panel Chair