RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04909
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, 
character of service reflect an honorable discharge rather than 
general (under honorable conditions).

2.  His DD Form 256AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate, reflect 
a discharge date of 20 September 1973 rather than 29 October 
1972.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DD Form 214 and DD Form 256AF are in error.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214 and DD Form 256AF.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the Delayed 
Entry Program (DEP) on 4 October 1972 and was honorably 
discharged on 29 October 1972.

On 30 October 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFM 39-12.  The specific reasons were the 
applicant’s inability to properly adjust to military life and 
the inability to expend efforts constructively.

An evaluation officer reviewed the case and recommended the 
applicant be discharged with service characterized as general.  
The evaluation officer stated the applicant had been absent 
without leave (AWOL), failed to report for duty at the proper 
time, refused to obey a lawful order of his section commander 
and admitted to stealing merchandise.  He received counseling, 
verbal reprimands and punishment under Article 15.  His loss of 
productivity was due to his complete negative attitude toward 
military life, failing to exert any effort to conform or adapt 
and failing to correct his unsuitable conduct and behavior.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting 
with counsel he elected not to submit a statement on his own 
behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff 
judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended 
discharge.  The discharge authority concurred with the 
recommendation and directed a general discharge.  The applicant 
was discharged on 20 September 1973.  He served 10 months and 
9 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states when determining 
punishment, the commander has full authority to consider all 
circumstances which surround the offenses and select a 
punishment that will be meaningful to the member given those 
circumstances.  During the applicant’s active duty service he 
acted in a manner inconsistent with Air Force standards of good 
order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of 
integrity.  There appears to be little to gain from the Air 
Force standpoint in retaining the applicant because of his 
apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort 
constructively and because of his limited potential for 
successful completion of further military service.  The 
commander’s administrative discharge and the applicant’s 
separation code were applied appropriately.

In accordance with AFI 36-3202, Section B, Paragraph 2.1, DD 
Form 256AF Honorable Discharge, is used to discharge members who 
separate from the Air Force with an honorable characterization 
and not released to the Reserve components.  The members who 
fulfill their obligation with the reserve forces are issued this 
certificate when discharged with an honorable service 
characterization.  Since the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge he would not have been issued a 
DD Form 256AF.

The applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been more 
than 30 years since the applicant’s discharge from the Air 
Force.  The applicant did not justify why the alleged error or 
injustice was not addressed within three years from date of 
discharge.




There is no automatic correction simply for the passage of time, 
nor did the applicant provide any evidence of an error or 
injustice regarding his separation code or narrative reason for 
separation.

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 to his separation code or 
narrative reason for separation.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the characterization of 
service was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge manual and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.

The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 January 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  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 injustice.  The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
_





THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-04909 in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 October 2012, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 December 2012.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 January 2013.