RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00264
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served under honorable conditions for a long  period  of  time  and
feels he earned a good discharge.

Supporting documents were  not  provided.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  6 Oct
70.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2),  with
an effective date and date of rank of 18 Nov 70.  He  was  reduced  to
the grade of airman basic (E-1), pursuant to an Article 15.

On 30  May  72,  court-martial  charges  were  preferred  against  the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 May to  25 May
72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and, for breach of  correctional
custody on 19  May  72,  in  violation  of  Article  134,  UCMJ.   The
applicant’s prior disciplinary record follows:

       -  On  20  Apr  71,  applicant  received  notification  of  his
commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about  16-17 Apr
71, 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 to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $30.00.
 Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

       -  On  14  Jun  71,  applicant  received  notification  of  his
commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure  to  report  to
his place of duty, on 7 Jun 71, in  violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ.
Applicant  elected  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15.   The
commander determined that applicant was  guilty  of  the  offense  and
imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a  forfeiture   of   $30.00   and
restriction to base from 15-28 Jun 71.  Applicant did not  appeal  the
punishment.

       -  On  1  Sep  71,  applicant  received  notification  of   his
commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about  16-17 Apr
71, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant  elected  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15.  The commander determined that  applicant
was guilty of the offense  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a
reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $30.00.
 Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

      -  One Special Court-Martial conviction on 8 Dec  71  for  being
AWOL from 7 Sep to 15 Nov 71, in violation of Article  86,  UCMJ.   He
was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor  for  four
months and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for four months.

       -  On  5  May  72,  applicant  received  notification  of   his
commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for being AWOL from 24  Apr
- 1 May 72, in violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   Applicant  elected
nonjudicial punishment under Article  15.   The  commander  determined
that applicant was  guilty  of  the  offense  and  imposed  punishment
consisting of a forfeiture of $35.00 per month for two months  and  30
days  of  correctional  custody.   Applicant  did   not   appeal   the
punishment.  On 5 Jun 72, the applicant’s unexecuted  portion  of  the
correctional custody was remitted.

On 26 May 72, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a
request for discharge for the good of the service.  On 28 Jun 72,  the
base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to
support the discharge and recommended acceptance of  the  request  for
discharge.   On  3  Jul  72,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
applicant’s request for discharge for the  good  of  the  service  and
ordered  an  undesirable  discharge.   The   applicant   received   an
undesirable discharge on 11 Jul 72 under the provisions of AFM  39-12.
He had completed a total of 1 year, 2  months  and  21  days  and  was
serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time  of  discharge.
The applicant had a total of 195 days of lost time.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application  be  denied.   Based  on  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he  provided
no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  The  HQ  AFPC/DDPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  21
Feb 03 for review and response.  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  error  or  injustice.   We   thoroughly   reviewed
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge in 1972 and found no  evidence  that  responsible  officials
applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge
request for  the  good  of  the  service,  that  pertinent  Air  Force
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the
above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s  substantial
rights were violated, that the information contained in the  discharge
case  file  was  erroneous,  or  that  his  superiors   abused   their
discretionary authority, we are not inclined to favorably consider his
request for upgrade of his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00264.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair