RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02826
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in the Air Force for almost two years without incident before he  was
wrongly discharged.

He was unhappy about an incident that occurred and voiced his opinion.

He thought his discharge was honorable until he  requested  a  copy  of  his
discharge a few years ago.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 23 Oct 80 and served  for
a period of 1 year, 3 months, and 10 days.

On 31 Dec 81, the applicant’s commander notified him  of  pending  discharge
actions.  The commander cited the applicant as being unable or unwilling  to
expend the effort to become a productive member of the Air Force.

On 1 Aug 81, the applicant was counseled for failure to  go.   Additionally,
he had been counseled on 28 Jun, 10 Jul, and 19 Jul 81 for failure to go.

On 10 Aug 81, the applicant received a Letter of  Admonishment  for  failure
to go.

On 2 Sep 81, the applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  for  failure  to
obey a lawful order.  Specifically,  he  reported  for  training  in  street
clothes and was ordered to return home  and  report  back  in  uniform.   He
failed to return to duty.

On 23 Oct 81, he received a Letter of  Reprimand  for  failure  to  obey  an
order or regulation.

On 7 Dec 81, the applicant received an Article  15,  Record  of  Nonjudicial
Punishment, for  failure  to  go.   Specifically,  he  failed  to  attend  a
Departure Briefing at the Base Theater at the prescribed time,  and  without
authority, leave from his appointed place of  duty,  and  failed  to  follow
lawful orders to vacuum offices and clean window tracks, all on  4  Dec  81.
In addition, he received a suspended reduction in grade to  airman  and  was
ordered to forfeit $75 per month for two months.

On  11  Dec  81,  the  applicant  was  charged  with  failure   to   repair.
Specifically, he failed to show for a scheduled Missile Procedures  Training
session.

On 14 Dec 81, he received an Article 15 for failure to go at the  prescribed
time to his appointed place of duty.  He also received a reduction in  grade
to airman basic.

He was in upgrade training from 26 Jun to 26 Aug 81 but failed  his  initial
upgrade stand board evaluation on 25 Aug 81.  Although  he  passed  his  re-
check evaluation on 27 Aug 81, he failed a recurring evaluation  on  21  Oct
81, at which time he was reentered into upgrade training.   On  14  Dec  81,
the applicant was withdrawn from upgrade training due to failure  to  expend
the effort to progress.

On  13  Jan  82,  a  discharge  evaluation  officer  was  assigned.      The
evaluation officer reported the applicant attributed many  of  his  problems
to not having a car when he initially arrived at the  base.   The  applicant
stated he became depressed and was unable  to  expend  sufficient  time  and
effort on his military responsibilities during Jul and Aug of  1981  because
of military pay problems.  In addition, he felt that the only visibility  he
got was for the things he did wrong, even though he did put forth an  honest
effort  to  be  a  good  airman.   The  evaluation  officer  determined  the
applicant was unsuitable for further military service  and  not  a  suitable
candidate for rehabilitation.  He further stated  the  applicant’s  military
service record was not sufficiently  meritorious  to  warrant  an  honorable
discharge.

The  applicant  acknowledged  the  evaluation  and  submitted  a   statement
indicating he wanted out of the Air Force because he felt  he  put  forth  a
better effort doing something that he enjoyed rather than remaining  in  the
Air Force and being unhappy.  He used taxis and the bus to  get  around  but
that became expensive.  Finance added to  his  problems  by  shortening  his
checks or telling him that he was not going to get any money at  all.   This
caused him to be late  or  a  no-show  because  he  was  trying  to  get  it
resolved.  In his summary, he stated he felt it would be a waste of the  Air
Force’s time and money and his if he remained in the Air Force.

On 25 Jan 82, the  legal  office  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and
recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge for  apathy
and defective attitude.  The discharge authority concurred and directed  the
applicant  be  furnished  a  general   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation, under the provisions of AFM 39-12,  Chapter  2,  Section  A,
paragraph 2-4c.

The applicant was discharged on 1 Feb 82 with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an Investigative Report, 305985VA5, which is  at  Exhibit
C.  On 2 Oct 07, a request for post-service information and a  copy  of  the
FBI report were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within  30
days (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF FBI REPORT/POST-SERVICE REQUEST:

The applicant provided a brief overview of his military  career  and  events
leading to his discharge.  Since discharge, the applicant states he began  a
career as an electrical apprentice and worked  for  over  10  years  in  the
electrical  field.   He  studied  accounting  while   attending   Washington
Business School,  worked  as  an  accounting  clerk,  and  his  most  recent
position has been with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

He further states there was a point in his  life  when  things  got  out  of
control due to substance abuse; however, he has been drug  free  since  2003
and is now a born-again Christian.  The applicant states  he  now  owns  his
own business and has included character references for review.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  find  no
evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice  that  occurred  in   the   discharge
processing.  Based on the available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the  discharge
regulation  and  within  the  commander's  discretionary   authority.    The
applicant has provided no evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  the
characterization of the service  was  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulation, unduly harsh,  or  disproportionate  to  the  offenses
committed.   We  considered  upgrading  the  discharge  based  on  clemency;
however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient  to  compel  us
to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-02826
in Executive Session on 28 November 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member



The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2007-
02826:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  AFBCMR Letter, w/atch, dated 2 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Extract, AFI 36-3208.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 29 Oct 07.



                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair