RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01032

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded  to  honorable,  the  reason   for   discharge   changed   to
“Convenience of the  Government,  the  Separation  Program  Designator
(SPD) changed accordingly, and his reenlistment eligibility code  (RE)
changed to RE-1.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he entered the Air Force, he was very  young  and  immature.   He
really thought he was trying to escape his life.  He had  been  abused
and neglected by his parents during his  childhood  and  removed  from
their care.   He  was  raised  in  foster  care,  he  did  not  really
understand what was happening to him, and he didn’t  have  the  coping
skills to deal with all of the emotions that he felt.  He began  using
alcohol and drugs to mask the emotional problems he was  having.   The
combination of those factors and his youth  and  immaturity  prevented
him from making sound judgments.

When he was stationed in Florida, he found out  that  his  father  was
also living in the state.  Given his placement in foster care, he  had
many questions in his mind that needed answering.  He went AWOL  twice
to see his father because he couldn’t bear  knowing  he  was  not  far
away.  His emotional volatility,  alcohol  and  substance  abuse,  and
immaturity really clouded his judgment.  At that time,  his  commander
gave him two choices, to go to a retraining brigade or be  discharged.
He could hardly manage his life  at  that  time  and  really  was  too
immature to recognize the consequences of that choice. Now that he  is
older and more mature and had many years to reflect  back  on  it,  he
really regrets his actions and wished someone had reached out  to  him
and offered him some type of help at that  time.   Although  he  takes
full responsibility for  his  irresponsible  behavior  back  then,  he
thinks the punishment he received was too severe compared with today’s
standards.

He apologizes that it has taken so long since his discharge  for  this
request, but he had no idea that he could request consideration for an
upgrade of his discharge and only recently found out when he met  with
a social worker that also happened to be a veteran.

In support of his request, he submits a personal letter, a copy of his
DD Form 214 and letters of support from co-workers.

Applicant’s complete application, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
28 May 1971.  On 22 May 1981, he was  involuntarily  discharged  under
the provision of AFR 39-12 (frequent involvement  of  a  discreditable
nature with civil and military authorities) with service characterized
as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), with a RE  code,  in
the grade of airman basic.  He served one year, six  months  and  nine
days of total active military service.

On 20 November 1972, his commander notified the applicant that he  was
recommending him for a discharge because of his  frequent  involvement
of a discreditable nature  with  military  authorities.   His  records
indicate he was involved in numerous incidents that required continual
documented counselings and administrative actions.  He was  placed  on
the control roster for failure to meet  standards,  unclean  uniforms,
failure to perform assigned duties and  unsanitary  personal  hygiene.
He received three Articles 15:  10 November 1971, 31 August 72, and 14
October 1972, for being absent without leave and leaving his place  of
duty without permission.  In November  1971,  he  was  reduced  to  AB
(suspended), forfeited $30 and 14 days extra duty; in August 1972,  he
was reduced to AB and forfeited $75;  and  in  October  1972,  he  was
ordered to correctional custody for 30 days  and  forfeited  $125  per
month for  two  months.   Applicant  consulted  with  counsel  on   21
November 1972 and waived  his  right  to  appear  before  a  Board  of
Officers or submit statements in his behalf.  The base legal  services
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to   support
discharge.  Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) were  not  recommended.
The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and  ordered  an  UOTCH
discharge without P&R.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the  procedural
and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge    regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge
authority.  Separation for the  “Convenience  of  the  Government”  is
generic term used to describe a number of  voluntary  and  involuntary
separations  and  these  separations  have  their  own  SPD  code  and
narrative reason.  Applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
proceedings.  The applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of
the discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE stated that  the  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  2,
“Ineligible to reenlist in the Regular Air  Force”  is  correct.   The
applicant’s request should be denied.  He received the proper RE  code
upon discharge.

AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
4 June 2003, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his discharge, narrative reason for separation  and  RE
code should be  upgraded  or  changed.   Applicant’s  contentions  and
supporting statements were duly noted; however, we do not  find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the  evidence  of  record.    We   agree   with   the   opinions   and
recommendations of the Air Force and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error   or   an   injustice.
Therefore, in absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-
01032 in Executive Session on 29 July 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schunz, Member
                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Apr 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.





      OLGA M. CRERAR
      Panel Chair