RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02394
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and immature.  He was having family  problems  and  his  cousin
and best friend had just died.  He was threatened with time in  Leavenworth,
without being afforded judicial review.

In support of his request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
letters  from  his  employer,  church  local  police  department,  and   two
character reference letters from friends (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records  reflect  that  he  enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force on 9 April 1970 for a period of 4 years.

On 15 September 1972, applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or  about  24  August  and  30
August 1972, in violation of  Article  86,  UCMJ;  and,  for  being  absent,
without authority, from his organization, on or about  10  September  to  15
September 1972,  in  violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   Applicant  elected
nonjudicial punishment under Article  15.   The  commander  determined  that
applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of  a
reduction in grade from sergeant to airman first class,  forfeiture  of  $82
and  7  days  of  correctional  custody.   Applicant  did  not  appeal   the
punishment.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) during the following  periods:
 8 Jul-4 Aug 72, 10 Sep-14 Sep 72, 28 Sep-26 Oct 72, and  27 Oct-3  Dec  72,
for a total of 67 days.

On 20 December 1972, the applicant  requested  discharge  under  AFM  39-12,
paragraph 2-78, for the good  of  the  service.   The  applicant’s  squadron
section commander recommended that the discharge  request  be  approved  and
that the applicant be  furnished  an  undesirable  discharge  for  willfully
missing an overseas movement (permanent change of  station)  and  for  being
AWOL 67 days.

He  received  an  undesirable  (under  other  than   honorable   conditions)
discharge on 24 January 1973 under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (request  for
discharge for the good of the service).  He had completed 2 years, 7  months
and 4 days of active duty and was serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  first
class (E-3) at the time of discharge.

Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied  by
the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 17 September 1973.   A  copy
of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV,  indicated on 10 March 1999, that,  on  the  basis  of  data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter  prepared  by  the
appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated  that
review of the applicant’s record reveals court-martial convictions and  time
loss for being absent without leave (AWOL) for  5  days  from  10  September
1972 to 14 September 1972.  He was again AWOL for 29 days from 28  September
1972 to 26 October 1972, at which time he was dropped from the  rolls  as  a
deserter and was apprehended by civilian authorities on 3 December 1972  and
returned to military control.  General court-martial charges were  preferred
and if found guilty of the offenses, he could have been sentenced to  a  bad
conduct or dishonorable  discharge  with  confinement  at  hard  labor.   On
20 December 1972, the applicant applied for discharge for the  good  of  the
service and indicated that he  understood  his  request  for  discharge,  if
approved, would be an undesirable.

DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify
any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which  support  any
claim of injustice.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommended applicant’s  request  be
denied (Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on  21
December 1998 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We have thoroughly  reviewed  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  In  this  respect,  we
find no impropriety in the characterization of  applicant’s  discharge.   It
appears  that  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate   standards   in
effecting the separation, and  we  do  not  find  persuasive  evidence  that
pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which  entitled  at  the  time  of  discharge.   We  conclude,
therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper  and  characterization
of  the  discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing  circumstances.   We
reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant in  the  form  of  character
references and find it insufficient to warrant  a  recommendation  that  the
discharge be  upgraded  on  the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  On balance, based on the seriousness of  his  infractions,
we do not believe that clemency is warranted at this time.

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 issue(s) 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 probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 4 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 17 Sep 93.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Dec 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Dec 98.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair