RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03007
                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                             COUNSEL: None

                             HEARING DESIRED: No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 APRIL 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that his time in service including his previous five years
of honorable service demonstrates that his discharge was rather  harsh
punishment for the  trivial  matter  that  occurred  during  his  last
enlistment.

He was a young man who  did  not  realize  the  impact  this  type  of
discharge would have on him.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his  DD  Form
214, Character Letters, DD Form 293.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  16 July  1958
for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 1 March 1960, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent
to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions
of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16.  The  specific  reasons  for  the
discharge action were:

      a.    On 18 November 1959, the applicant received an Article  15
for failure to repair.

      b.    On 4 January 1960, the  applicant  was  tried  by  summary
court martial for failure to repair.  He was sentenced to  restriction
to the base for 30 days and forfeiture of $50.00.

      c.    On 15 August 1958, the applicant was assigned to the  Base
Operations Dispatch Section and failed the responsibilities  assigned,
frequently  late  for  reporting  for  duty  and  negligent   in   the
performance of his duties.  The applicant expressed a desired to enter
the Special Service Career Field and was reclassified effective 1 July
1959.  After his reassignment to Base Gymnasium, the applicant  showed
very little interest in his duties and based on his  own  request  was
reassigned to the Food Service Section.

      d.    The applicant while assigned to the Food  Service  Section
repeatedly reported late for duty and reported unfit for duty  because
of prior indulgence of alcohol.  He did not respond to counseling  and
was returned to the Special Service Section.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge
and waived his right to submit statements in own behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant was counseled repeatedly  by  his  supervisors  about  his
frequent failures to repair, over indulgence  in  alcohol,  lack  of
responsibility and apathetic attitude and complete  indifference  to
developing  duty  skills.   The  applicant  was  assigned  in  three
different sections but in spite  of  varied  opportunities  afforded
him; he failed to respond to reassignments, counseling or  training.
The commander further stated he does not believe further attempts at
retraining or rehabilitation, including reassignment, would overcome
his lack of interest and apathetic attitude in assuming the role  of
a productive responsible airman in the  Air  Force,  and  that  such
further efforts would serve no useful purpose.

On 16 March 1960, the discharge authority directed the applicant  be
discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 17 March 1960, in the  grade  of  airman
basic with an under honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge,  in
accordance with AFR 39-16, Discharge for  Unsuitability  (inaptitude
and unsuitability).  He served five years, seven  months  and  eight
days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.  They state  the
applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors  or
injustices that occurred in the processing of  his  discharge.   Based
upon the documentation in  the  applicant's  file,  they  believe  his
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3
November 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

On 8 December 2006, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy  of
FBI report for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  The  applicant  alleges  the  discharge  he
received was too harsh for the trivial matter that occurred.  However,
based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that
the processing of  the  discharge  and  the  characterization  of  the
discharge were appropriate and accomplished  in  accordance  with  Air
Force policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,
we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03007  in  Executive  Session  on  11  January  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Todd L. Schaffer, Member
                       Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Oct 06
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 06.





                             LAURENCE M. GRONER

                                        Panel Chair