RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02531

            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the record to be unjust because his discharge was based on
incidents of being absent without leave (AWOL) that, at that  time  he
believed to be his duties and obligations he owed to his  family.   He
states his wife left him and took their daughter, and that’s  when  he
started drinking and  made  mistakes.   Additionally,  he  states  the
information that has been provided is his only defense, he still loves
his country and would still willingly die for what it stands for.

In support of the his  appeal,  the  applicant  submitted  a  personal
statement and a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for the Review of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 November 1970, applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the
Regular Air Force, in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  He entered his
last enlistment on 7 November 1973.  Prior to the events under review,
he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5).

The records contain 14 performance reports reflecting overall  ratings
of (oldest to latest): 6, 9, 6,  8,  9,  9,  9,  9,  7,  9,  9,  9,  4
(referral), and 8.

Applicant was arraigned and tried by special court-martial on  9 March
1979, and found guilty of two specifications of being  AWOL.   He  was
sentenced  to  three  months  of  hard  labor   without   confinement,
forfeitures of $100 per month for six months, and reduction  in  grade
from staff sergeant to sergeant.

The facts surrounding his discharge from the  Air  Force  are  unknown
inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available.

Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, reflects that he was discharged on 4 June 1980, under the
provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of Request for  Discharge  for  the
Good of the Service, with a UOTHC discharge.  He was credited  with  9
years, 4 months, and 25 days of active duty (excludes 67 days of  lost
time due to AWOL and confinement).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed  the  application  and
states that the applicant’s master personnel record does  not  contain
the complete discharge case file.  They noted that in March 1979,  the
applicant was court-martialed and found guilty of  two  specifications
of being AWOL from his unit.  They also stated that the applicant  did
not provide any evidence of error in his discharge case and that since
the discharge occurred  almost  20  years  ago,  and  considering  his
otherwise  honorable  service  for  over  nine  years  prior  to   his
discharge, they recommend clemency.  They further stated  if  the  FBI
proves negative, the  applicant’s  discharge  should  be  upgraded  to
general (under honorable conditions).

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 November 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E).

The applicant responded to the  FBI  report  by  letter,  undated,  to
further explain the  events  which  were  listed  on  his  report  and
accomplishments since his discharge from active  duty.   Additionally,
he  submitted  a  letter  from  his  employer  and   certificates   of
appreciation, achievement and participation for training.

In addition, a letter was received from the  Georgia  State  Board  of
Pardons and Parole.

The complete responses are at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  Considered  alone,
we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization
of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  Although the applicant did  not  request  consideration  based  on
clemency,  we  also  find   insufficient   evidence   to   warrant   a
recommendation that the discharge  be  upgraded  on  that  basis.   We
considered  the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service  and   the
available evidence related to his post-service activities and conduct.
 On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 13 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Oct 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Nov 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs; Ltr, from
                Senior Parole Officer, dtd 8 Jan 01




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair