RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00162

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  17 August  1970  for  a
period of four years.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
sergeant (E-4).

On 18 August 1972, the commander  notified  him  of  his  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) for violating  Article  86  (Absent  Without  Leave  (AWOL)).
Specifically, for being AWOL during the period 8 August 1972  to  12  August
1972 (four days), in that, without authority, he absented himself  from  his
organization.  He waived his right to trial by  court-martial  and  did  not
submit matters in his behalf.  On 23  August  1972,  the  commander  imposed
punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman  first  class  (E-
3), forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months, and restriction  to  the
limits of Takhli Royal Air  Base  for  14  days.   He  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.  The reduction in grade portion of the punishment was  suspended
until 1 January 1973, at which time, unless  sooner  vacated,  it  would  be
remitted without further action.

On 29 August 1972, the commander notified  him  that  he  was  proposing  to
vacate the suspension because  he  attempted  to  break  restriction  on  24
August 1972, in violation of Article 80,  UCMJ.   He  requested  a  personal
hearing and submitted oral matters to the commander.   On  29  August  1972,
the commander vacated the suspended portion of the  punishment  as  provided
for reduction to the grade of airman first class.

On 12 December 1972, he underwent a Mental Health Evaluation that  diagnosed
him with a passive dependent personality disorder.

On 1  May  1973,  the  commander  notified  him  of  his  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ  for  violating  Article
86 (AWOL).  Specifically, for being AWOL during the period 30 March 1973  to
16 April 1973 (17 days).  He waived his right to trial by court-martial  and
did not submit matters in his behalf.  On 1 May 1973, the commander  imposed
punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman basic  (E-1),  and
forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two  months.   He  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

The commander notified him on 10 May 1973,  that  he  was  recommending  his
general discharge for his defective attitude and inability to expend  effort
constructively, as evidenced by repeated disciplinary actions.

He was discharged on 25 May 1973,  with  service  characterized  as  general
(under honorable conditions).  He completed 2 years, 8 months, and  22  days
of active service, which excludes 21 days of lost time (AWOL 8  August  1972
- 12 August 1972 & 30 March 1973 - 15 April 1973).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition,  the  discharge  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in the discharge  and  provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 February 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing  the  available
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission,  we  find
no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the  discharge  appears
to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the  time  of
his separation.  The applicant has provided no  evidence  to  indicate  that
his separation was inappropriate.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant  was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to  disturb  the
existing record.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of  clemency.   We  have  considered  the
applicant’s overall quality of service, the  events  that  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  his  post-service  activities
and accomplishments.  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 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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-00162
in Executive Session on 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair