RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00165
                                             INDEX CODE:  106.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be upgraded due to the length  of  time  since  he  was
discharged.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of his DD Form 214,  and  a
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the  Armed  Forces
of the United States.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 17 May 1978,  and  served  as
an apprentice security specialist until his discharge.

On 13 March 1980, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for a general discharge for  apathy  and  defective  attitude.
The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. Record of Counseling (ROC) for, on  or  about  1  February  1979,
           failing to repair for a required Uniform Code of Military Justice
           (UCMJ) briefing.

        b. ROC for, on or about 23 February 1979, reporting for  guard-mount
           needing a haircut.


        c. Letter of Counseling (LOC) for, on or  about  24  February  1979,
           failing to comply with the verbal order on or about  23  February
           1979 to get a haircut.

        d. ROC for, on  or  about  27  March  1979,  failing  to  turn-in  a
           completed Career Development Course (CDC) in a timely manner.

        e. ROC for, on or about  2  July  1979,  failing  to  repair  for  a
           scheduled dental appointment.

        f. ROC for, on or about 4 August 1979, failing to have required  ear
           plugs in his possession.

        g. Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for, on or about 14 September  1979,
           failing  to  repair  for  his  scheduled  End  of  Course   (EOC)
           Examination.

        h. LOR and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) entry  for,  on  or
           about 7 January 1980, refusing to comply with instructions  given
           to him by the A-Flight Bay Chief to perform duties as Bay Orderly
           as designated on the daily duty roster.

        i. Statement for the Record  for,  on  or  about  29  January  1980,
           reporting to the squadron commander and stating he was  quitting,
           which resulted in the scheduling of a psychiatric  evaluation  to
           determine if his  action  was  due  to  psychological  stress  or
           resulted from an apathetic  and  defective  attitude  toward  his
           duties.

        j. ROC for, on or about 1 February  1980,  receiving  a  psychiatric
           evaluation stating there were  no  physical  or  mental  problems
           precluding him from performing his assigned duties.

        k. Commanders Request  for  Article  15  Action  for,  on  or  about
           5 February  1980,  displaying  a  negative  attitude  toward  his
           security police duties for which a Statement for the  Record  was
           forwarded to the Staff Judge Advocate.

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel had been  obtained
for him, and the commander  exercising  special  court-martial  jurisdiction
would appoint an evaluation officer who would review his case file and  make
arrangements for a personal interview, at which time he would  be  given  an
opportunity to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf.   On
13 March 1980, the applicant signed a statement acknowledging legal  counsel
had been made available to assist him, although there is  no  indication  as
to whether he consulted legal counsel.

An evaluation officer was appointed on 24 March 1980, and on 26 March  1980,
the applicant signed a statement  acknowledging  he  had  been  advised  and
counseled as to the nature of this action, and the  evaluation  officer  was
available to assist him in the preparation  of  any  written  statements  or
rebuttals.  On 26 March 1980, he signed another statement waiving his  right
to submit a rebuttal or statements concerning the  action  being  taken,  or
the charges made.  On 27 March 1980, the evaluation  officer  submitted  his
report, and found the applicant was unsuitable for further military  service
due to apathy and defective attitude, and recommended he be  discharged  and
furnished a general discharge.

A legal review was conducted on 14 April 1980,  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate  noted  the  applicant’s  apathetic  and  defective  attitude  were
convincingly proven,  he  had  made  no  effort  to  help  himself  and  had
apparently chosen to follow a path which  he  believed  would  lead  to  his
discharge, and he had reached his goal and fully earned the  worst  type  of
discharge authorized by this action, that being a  general  discharge.   The
staff judge advocate recommended  he  be  separated  without  probation  and
rehabilitation, and he be furnished a general discharge certificate.

On 1 May 1980, the applicant was discharged in the  grade  of  airman  first
class  (E-3)  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12,  paragraph  2-4c,  for
unsuitability  -  apathy,  defective  attitude,  with  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) service characterization.   He  served  a  total  of  1
year, 11 months, and 15 days of net active service

The applicant’s Airman Performance Report profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING                    EVALUATION

             16 May 1979                           6 (referral)
             31 Dec 1979                           7

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, indicated at Exhibit C that they were unable to identify  an
arrest record on the basis of the information furnished.

On 29 February 2008, a request for post-service  information  was  forwarded
to the applicant for response within 30 days.  However, 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  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, in the absence of  documentation  pertaining  to  his  post-service
accomplishments, we cannot conclude that it  is  warranted.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  basis  upon  which  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  Docket  Number  BC-2008-00165
in Executive Session on 14 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                       Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  USDOJ Negative FBI Response, dated 24 Jan 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Feb 08, w/atch.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair