RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00282
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 AUGUST 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable in order for him to receive his Purple Heart (PH).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He failed to show up for duty on or about six  months  prior  to  his
discharge for duty and stated incorrectly to his  squadron  commander
that he was out of town and did not get back in time  for  duty.   He
believes he should have received a less severe means of punishment.

The applicant provided no supporting documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force   (RegAF)   on
18 November 1968 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 25 October 1973, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for discharge from  the  Air  Force  (AF)  under  the
provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12 for unsuitability -  apathy
defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively.  The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 25 September 1973, the applicant received an Article 15
for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

      b.    On 16 July 1973, the applicant received an Article 15  for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

      c.    On 1 March 1973, the applicant received an Article 15  for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

The commander advised  applicant  that  military  counsel  had  been
obtained to assist him and a record of the consultation will be made
by military counsel and placed in the case file

The commander stated in the recommendation for discharge that he  was
recommending  the  applicant  receive  a  general  (under   honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

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

On 27 November 1973, the evaluation  officer  reviewed  the  case  and
recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general   (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.
The  applicant  submitted  a  rebuttal  to  the  evaluation  officer’s
findings.

The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support separation  and  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.   The  legal  office  noted  the
following derogatory incidents pertaining to the applicant.

      a.    On 15 June 197, the applicant received an Article  15  for
being disorderly.

      b.    The  applicant  received  several  letters  regarding  his
failures to repair between July and October 1973.

      c.    An  incident  report  dated  12  May  1973  indicated  the
applicant appeared at the main gate with contusions,  lacerations  and
in a state of intoxication.

      d.    An incident report dated  7  October  1973  reflected  the
applicant cursed out  an  individual  in  the  base  dining  hall  and
threatened to turn a table over on the individual.

      e.     A  letter  of  indebtedness,  dated  28  September  1973,
reflected the applicant  was  three  months  in  arrears  on  his  car
payment.

      f.    The applicant was  counseled  on  four  occasions  between
February and March 1973 regarding repeated failures to repair.

      g.    The applicant’s Airman Performance Report  (APR)  for  the
period 26 September 1972 through 24 August 1973 reflected  an  overall
rating of “one,” although he had received previous  APR’s  of  “eight”
and “nine.”

      h.    On 23 May 1973, the applicant was admitted into the clinic
for treatment and  evaluation  for  alcohol  problems.   The  clinical
summary indicated the applicant drank a pint of alcohol a  day  during
his period of treatment and made no serious effort  to  recognize  his
drinking problem.

      i.    The applicant was evaluated by  an  Individual  Evaluation
Officer  and  found  that  the  applicant  exhibited  a   pattern   of
irresponsibility and that he did not respond to disciplinary action.

On 14 December 1973, the discharge authority approved the  separation
and directed the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 20 December 1973  under
the  provisions  of  AFM   39-12,   Separation   for   Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the
Service and Procedures of the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability –
apathy,  defective  attitude   and   inability   to   expend   effort
constructively),  with  a  general   (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge.  He was credited with five years, one month and three days
of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.  He provided  no
facts warranting a change in his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the request for the PH be denied.   They  state
in order for a servicemember to be awarded the PH, the  servicemember
must provide a detailed personal account, eyewitness statements,  and
medical documentation to show the wound received treatment by medical
personnel and occurred as a direct  result  of  enemy  action.   They
further state after a complete review  of  the  applicant’s  official
record, they were
unable to verify the applicant received the PH.  Further no  official
documentation was located or submitted by the applicant to verify his
entitlement to the PH.  The applicant needs  to  provide  a  detailed
account of his injury  or  injuries  received,  certified  eyewitness
statements and official medical documentation to very his entitlement
to the PH.

AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
9 March 2007, for review and response.  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 an error or an injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing
the evidence of record, we are not persuaded  to  recommend  upgrading
the discharge.  The applicant was discharged for  unsuitability  based
on  apathy  defective  attitude   and   ability   to   expend   effort
constructively.  His military records reflect he received  nonjudicial
punishment,  administrative  actions  and  counseling  regarding   his
disregard for military authority.  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, 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.

4.    The applicant also requested award of the  Purple  Heart  Medal.
There is no evidence in the  applicant’s  records  indicating  he  was
injured or received medical treatment for any injuries incurred  as  a
direct  result  of  enemy  action.    However,   should   he   provide
documentation verifying he sustained injuries that meet  the  criteria
for award of the Purple Heart, the Board
would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.
 Therefore, in the absences of evidence to the contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2007-00282 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 07.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Feb 07.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.




                                        MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                        Panel Chair