RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03247
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to a general or honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time frame of  his  discharge  his  personal  life  was  in
upheaval.  He was willing to accept any means necessary to  leave  the
military.

He always thought he received an under honorable conditions  (general)
discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the contested time period, applicant served a total of  five
years in the United States Army.  He was honorably  discharged  on  4
August 1968 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August 1968 in
the grade of airman first class for a period of four years.

On 17 January 1969, the applicant's commander notified the applicant
he was being recommended for an undesirable discharge for unfitness.
 The commander cited the following reasons for the discharge:

      a.  A letter dated 8 October 1968 was received on  17  October
1968 alleging the applicant was indebted to Mr. G.E.B. in the amount
of $212.50  for  back  rent.  The  applicant  was  counseled  on  18
October 1968 regarding the alleged  debt.   The  applicant  admitted
owing the debt and agreed to contact Mr. G.E.B. to arrange a payment
 plan.  The  applicant  was  again  counseled
on 23 and 28 October 1968, where he explained that he was unable  to
contact Mr. G.E.B. and that Mr. G.E.B. did not return his calls.  On
29 October 1968 a reasonable payment plan  was  proposed  until  the
debt was paid.  Mr. G.E.B. concurred with the  payment  plan  on  11
November 1968.  In a letter dated 18 December 1968 from  Mr.  G.E.B.
stating the applicant was in arrears  of  $35.00  on  the  repayment
plan.

      b.  The applicant had an  unpaid  balance  in  the  amount  of
$230.00 for an apartment he rented from Mr. S. at the rate of $35.00
a week from 24 August 1968 through 1 December 1968.

      c.  The applicant failed to pay the agreed amount $27.00 on  a
television he rented from Mr. M.S.B. from 29 October 1968 through  5
December 1968.  An additional $1.50 was added for a broken  antenna.
The total amount owed was $28.50.

      d.  On 21 September 1968, the applicant was  indebted  to  the
Chanute AFB Airman’s Club for dues and  charges  in  the  amount  of
$20.00.  He made payment on this debt on 27 December 1968.

      e.  The applicant failed to make the required monthly payments
on a vehicle that  was  financed  by  the  Bank  of  Illinois.   The
applicant was counseled on  31  December  1968  concerning  the  car
payments.  The applicant  stated  he would  be able  to make the  10
December payment.  As of January 1969 the bank had  not  received  a
payment from the applicant.

      f.  The applicant was counseled on 2 January 1969 for returned
checks for insufficient funds that were presented to  Brownie’s  IGA
on 25 and 26 November 1968.

      g.  On 13 December 1968 the applicant  received  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR) for lying to his Technical School Instructor when he
requested to be excused from class in order to report to  sick  call
and then failed to report to sick call.

      h.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 3 January 1969 for
failure to go at the time prescribed, to his appointed duty  without
proper authority.

The commander noted the applicant was arrested by civil  authorities
on 6 January  1969  for  two  counts  of  deceptive  practices.   He
remained in the custody of civil authorities  pending his  trial  on
17 January 1969.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for  discharge  action
that  the  applicant's  supervisor  repeatedly  counseled  him  with
negative results.

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel  had  been
obtained to assist him; or he could choose another counsel;  present
his case to an administrative discharge board; be
represented by legal counsel; submit statements in his  own  behalf;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 20 January 1969, after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived
his right to an administrative  discharge  board  and  to  submit  a
statement.  It was further noted that if the applicant  received  an
undesirable discharge  it  would  be  under  conditions  other  than
honorable and as a result of such a discharge the applicant  may  be
deprived  of  veteran’s  benefits;  and  may  encounter  substantial
prejudice in civilian life situations  where  the  type  of  service
rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of  discharge
received therefrom may have bearing.

On 17 February 1969, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 20 February 1969, in the grade of airman
first class with an under other than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-12 (Unfitness).   He  served  a
total of six months and six days of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant  an  upgrade
of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states while  he  was  stationed  at  Chanute  his  wife
informed him that if he remained in the Air Force, she would file  for
a divorce.  He wanted to save his  marriage  so  he  talked  with  his
commander and explained his situation.   His  commander  informed  him
that there was not much that he could do to solve his situation.   His
commander also informed him that he was a relatively good  airman  and
had nothing against him to  warrant  being  discharged.   During  this
personal and emotional upheaval,  he  was  willing  to  accept  almost
anything to save his marriage. So he made some bad judgments in  order
to facilitate grounds for a dismissal.  The applicant  further  states
that his misconduct lasted  a  few  weeks  out  of  several  years  of
service.   He has always been  proud  that  he  served  in  the  armed
forces.

Since his  being  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  he  has  lived  a
productive, honorable and patriotic life and have tried not to let his
youthful mistakes aversely affect his life.  He is  a  member  of  his
church and a 32nd Degree Mason and Shriner.  He has been  married  for
33 years, and has two children, and five grandchildren.

He does not feel that he is asking for much-just an upgrade to general
conditions.  He hopes that his youthful bad judgment  will  not  cloud
his veteran’s  status  and  taint  his  otherwise  honorable  military
service.  He regrets his mistakes.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

A copy of the FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the   applicant  on  21
January 2003, for review and response.  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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded to  recommend  upgrading  the
discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records,  it
appears that the processing of the discharge and the  characterization
of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance  with
Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall  quality
of service and in view of the numerous instances of  misconduct  while
the applicant was on active duty, we do not believe that  clemency  is
warranted.  Applicant presents no documented evidence of  post-service
activities and accomplishments.  However, should the applicant provide
documentation  pertaining  to  his  post-service  accomplishments  and
activities, this Board would be willing to review  the  materials  for
possible reconsideration.  Otherwise, in view  of  the  foregoing,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
03247  in  Executive  Session  on 7 January 2003  and 21 February 2003
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Oct 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jan 03.




                                        PEGGY E. GORDON
                                        Panel Chair