RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00464
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No contentions were provided.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge  or  Dismissal  from  the
Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States.   The   applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in  the  in  the  New  Jersey  Air
National Guard (NJ ANG) on 16 Dec 64 for a period of 6 years.   On  14
Nov 69, he was honorable discharged from the NJ ANG and transferred to
the Air Force Reserve (AFR) under the provisions of ANGR 39-10 and AFM
35-3 (failure to satisfactorily participate in  training  of  unit  to
which assigned).  He had completed a total of 4 years, 10  months  and
29 days of service and was serving in the grade of airman at the  time
of discharge.

On 15 Nov 69, the applicant was involuntarily  ordered  to  an  active
duty tour for a period of 16 months and 15 days.

On 20 Oct 70, the applicant received notification that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge for unfitness.  The reason for  this  action
was due  to  frequent  involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature  with
military authorities:

      a.  11 Sep 70 - Article 15 for failure to go on 4 and 7 Sep  70,
in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Punishment consisted of 14 days  of
extra duty and a suspended reduction to the grade of airman  until  15
Feb 71.

      b.  8 Oct 70 - Article 15 for failure to repair on 5 Oct 70,  in
violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Punishment consisted of  the  vacation
of the suspended reduction in grade and he was reduced to the grade of
airman basic.

      c.  14 Oct 70 - Article 15 for failure to repair for the  period
9 - 11  Oct  70  (AWOL),  in  violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   His
punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction  for  14
days.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.   On
20 Oct 70, the applicant acknowledged that military counsel  was  made
available; he waived his right to a hearing before  an  administrative
discharge board and declined to submit any written statements  in  his
behalf.  The discharge was found to be legally sufficient  to  support
the  commander’s  recommendation  for  a  general  discharge,  without
probation and rehabilitation.  On 9 Nov 70,  the  discharge  authority
approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be
issued a general discharge.

The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions  (general)  on
12 Nov 70 under the provisions of  AFM  39-12  (unfitness  -  frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities).   He
had completed 7 months and 25 days of active service this  period  and
was serving in the  grade  of  airman  basic  (E-1)  at  the  time  of
discharge.  The applicant had 124 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  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.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  has
no recollection of any Articles  15.   He  was  told  that  they  were
brought against him by mistake and that they  were  dismissed  without
penalty.  He requests a  hearing  on  this  matter.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge in 1970, we found no  evidence  that  responsible  officials
applied  inappropriate  standards   in   effecting   the   applicant’s
discharge, 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
sufficient 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.

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 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 10 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00464.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 8 Mar 03, w/atchs.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair