RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02142
            INDEX CODE:  112.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank be reinstated to the grade of airman third class (A3C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was an inadequate follow-up prior to his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  3  August  1965  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.  He  was  promoted  to
A3C on 15 September 1965.

The Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  brief  indicates  that  the
applicant was reduced in grade to airman basic on 11 May 1967  as  a  result
of an Article 15.   He  was  again  promoted  to  A3C  on  1 February  1967.
Subsequently, he was reduced in grade to airman basic on 26 June 1967  as  a
result of an Article 15.  The applicant received another  Article  15  on  7
November 1967 for failure to go on 26 and 28 October 1967.  He  received  30
days correctional custody.

On 16 January 1968, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
initiate  discharge  action  against  him  for  unfitness.   The   commander
recommended an undesirable discharge.  The specific reasons follow:

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant was arrested and convicted of driving while intoxicated on 19  May
1967.  On 26 June 1967 he was given Article 15  punishment  for  failure  to
go.  On 7 November 1967 he was again given Article  punishment  for  failing
to meet two required formations.  The staff psychiatrist  indicated  in  his
psychiatric evaluation that he strongly recommended  that,  because  of  the
applicant’s poor  performance  and  failure  to  respond  to  rehabilitation
attempts, he should be given an administrative  discharge.   His  supervisor
had spent a great deal of time  in  counseling  him  without  results.   His
supervisor further indicated that the member  had  failed  to  show  even  a
minimal interest in rehabilitating  himself  and  did  not  think  that  any
further effort was warranted.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,  to
present  his  case  before  an  administrative   discharge   board,   submit
statements in his own behalf, or waive  his  rights  after  consulting  with
counsel.

After being counseled, the applicant waived his right to  an  administrative
discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 9  February  1968,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

On 23 February 1968, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the  applicant  be
discharged with service characterized as  general  due  to  the  applicant’s
disciplinary record.

Applicant was discharged on 8 March 1968, in the grade of airman basic  with
service characterized as general (under  honorable  conditions),  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability).  He served  a  total  of  2  years,
7 months and 6 days of total active military service.

On 15 October 1976, the AFDRB granted the  applicant’s  request  to  upgrade
his  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  to   an   honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They indicated that  the  applicant  waited
over  35  years  after  discharge  before  he  petitioned  the  Board.   His
unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the Air  Force  as  relevant
records have been destroyed  or  are  no  longer  available,  memories  have
failed, and witnesses are unavailable.  The documentation contained  in  the
applicant’s record indicates he was discharged in the proper grade -  airman
basic.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that he  was  told  that
his personnel records were lost.  He believes that he was not  given  proper
counseling to improve his service in the Air Force.  He  indicates  that  if
he had the knowledge he has now he  would  have  sought  help  and  possible
legal counsel to question the Article 15s.  He  could  have  served  better,
however, he served with honor and pride while others chose  not  to  do  so.
He feels as though he deserved at least an E-2 rank.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting reinstatement of his  rank  of
airman third class  (A3C).   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the  applicant  has  been  the  victim  of
either an error or an injustice.  The applicant received three  Article  15s
in two years resulting in his reduction in grade  to  airman  basic,  and  a
civil conviction for driving while intoxicated.  We find  no  evidence  that
the Article 15 actions taken against the applicant were in error or  unjust.
  Further,  there  is  no  indication  that  the  commanders  abused   their
discretionary authority when they imposed  the  non-judicial  punishment  or
that the applicant was not given his  rights  as  required.   The  applicant
indicates that he was not given proper counseling to  improve  his  service.
On the contrary, it is noted that his supervisors counseled him on  numerous
occasions regarding his behavior and work habits.  As  a  last  resort,  his
supervisor requested a psychiatric evaluation  to  determine  his  attitude,
aptitude, and possible rehabilitation as a useful member of the  Air  Force.
On balance, it appears  that  the  applicant  received  fair  and  equitable
treatment prior to being discharged.  Notwithstanding the  decision  by  the
AFDRB  to  upgrade  the  applicant’s  characterization   of   discharge   to
honorable, there is no documentary evidence in the applicant’s records  that
would lead us to believe he was discharged in the improper grade.   In  view
of the foregoing, we find no compelling  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 an 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  BC-2003-
02142 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                  Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 June 2003.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 July 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 August 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                Panel Chair