RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00659

		COUNSEL:  NO

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would have made the Air Force a career if he was given a 
different job and his trainer would have taken his job more 
seriously.  After basic military training (BMT), he went 
straight to his duty station for on-the-job training (OJT) 
instead of technical school and was never given a chance to 
receive his 3-skill level.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jun 71.

On 20 Sep 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Conditions for 
Unsuitability.  The specific reasons for the action were apathy, 
defective attitudes, or inability to expend effort 
constructively.  Additionally, it was noted that the applicant 
received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful in 
language to a superior non-commissioned officer and a Letter of 
Reprimand for failure to repair.  He was provided counseling on 
numerous occasions for substandard duty performance and he twice 
failed his Aptitude and Knowledge Test (AKT).  

On 20 Sep 72, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and on 22 Sep 72, he waived his right to submit statements in 
his own behalf. 
On 25 Sep 72, the case was found legally sufficient and, on 28 
Sep 72, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a general discharge. 

On 2 Oct 72, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge and was credited with one year, 
four months, and one day of total active service. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the 
service characterization, was appropriately administered and 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant 
acted in a manner inconsistent with Air Force standards of good 
order and discipline by demonstrating an extreme lack of 
integrity.  Because of the applicant’s apathy, defective 
attitude, inability to expend effort constructively, and limited 
potential for successful completion of further service, the Air 
Force had little to gain in retaining him.  Additionally, the 
applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been more 
than 30 years since the applicant’s discharge and he has not 
provided any justification as to why the alleged error or 
injustice was not addressed within three years from the date of 
his discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of this case; however, we find no evidence or an error or 
injustice that occurred in the discharge process.  It appears 
the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time 
and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  No evidence 
has been presented to indicate otherwise.  Considered alone, we 
conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and 
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the 
existing circumstances.  Consideration of this Board, however, 
is not limited to the events which precipitated the discharge.  
In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity 
and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations 
which existed at the time were followed.  While the Board may 
consider upgrading the applicant’s discharge under this broader 
mandate, the applicant has provided no documentary evidence for 
our review to determine whether or not his contributions to his 
community since his service could cause us to conclude that his 
post-service accomplishments are sufficient to overcome the 
misconduct for which he was discharged.  However, should the 
applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service 
transition, including supporting statements from friends, 
colleagues, and community leaders, we would reconsider the 
applicant’s request based on new evidence.  However, in the 
absence of such evidence, 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 material 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-2013-00659 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		                , Panel Chair
		                , Member
		                , Member





The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00659 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Mar 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

4