RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-02158
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1975 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He gladly risked his life in Air Rescue in Vietnam, and was  proud  to
be part of the historic  lunar  astronauts  training  for  the  Apollo
mission. His wife was unhappy when he reenlisted  in  1971  after  his
1970 discharge. One day he found his wife at home in bed with his best
friend. He tried  to  repair  his  marriage  to  no  avail.  Then  his
helicopter aircraft series was mothballed; his final act as a mechanic
was to dismantle the very aircraft he fell in love with long ago.  The
combination of losing his wife and  then  his  aircraft  field  seemed
entirely too much. He believes he had a breakdown, but he was  neither
counseled nor offered a new career field. He’s 54 years  old  and  has
gotten his life back. He humbly asks for an honorable discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Jun 66 and served
as a squadron helicopter mechanic.  He  was  honorably  released  from
active duty on 7 Apr 70 after three years and  ten  months  of  active
service and transferred to the Reserves.

On 16 Jun 71, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force and was  assigned
to the ---- Organizational Maintenance Squadron at Hill AFB, UT, as  a
squadron helicopter mechanic. He was promoted to the grade of sergeant
on 21 Jun 71.

The applicant’s performance reports from 8 Jun 66 to 10 Apr 75 reflect
overall ratings predominately in the “8” or “9” range except  for  the
last report closing 10 Apr 75, which had an overall rating of “6.” His
performance reports are provided at Exhibit B.

A 24 Jan 72  medical  entry  reported  the  applicant  was  depressed,
explaining that his wife recently moved out because he returned to the
service; he had apparently reenlisted because he could not find a job.
The physician felt the applicant might need an antidepressant but held
off prescribing for the  present  and  referred  the  applicant  to  a
psychiatric social worker on base.

On 1 Feb 72, the psychiatric social worker referred the  applicant  to
the legal and the base personnel office for information on a  hardship
discharge. The applicant returned  to  the  physician,  indicating  he
needed a letter for a hardship discharge.

The physician wrote a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, dated 2 Feb 72,
advising there was considerable friction between the applicant and his
wife concerning his return to the service. The applicant did not  want
to reenlist but felt it was the only financially feasible thing to do.
His wife became increasingly upset over  this  and  finally  separated
from him. The psychiatric social worker also opined that the applicant
was suffering from situational depression of moderate severity related
to the imminent breakup of his marriage. Due to the applicant’s marked
difficulty in performing his job under this  pressure,  the  physician
recommended the applicant be given a hardship discharge.

There is no additional documentation in the  applicant’s  military  or
medical records regarding the depression/hardship discharge request.

On 14 Dec 73, the applicant  underwent  an  initial  flight  physical.
During  the  course  of  the  exam  he  apparently  revealed  he  used
intravenous (IV) amphetamines prior to reenlisting in  the  Air  Force
and used  amphetamines  orally  two  months  ago.  The  applicant  was
referred to the Mental Health  Clinic  to  be  identified  as  a  drug
abuser. The physician  also  reported  the  applicant’s  reference  to
depression, excessive worry and personal problems in 1972, which  were
resolved.

There is no additional documentation in the  applicant’s  military  or
medical records regarding the amphetamine use and/or a  Mental  Health
Clinic determination regarding drug abuse.

On 24 Jul 74, the applicant failed to report for duty and  was  absent
without leave (AWOL) for five days until he  voluntarily  returned  to
duty on 29 Jul 74.

On 16 Aug 74, the applicant’s commander notified a loan  company  that
the applicant had been counseled about his indebtedness and  forwarded
a payment.

However, the commander received another letter of indebtedness  on  21
Aug 74 regarding nonpayment on  rental  property.  As  a  result,  the
applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 29 Aug  74  for  not
keeping his promise to make payments.

On 12 Dec 74, the applicant received another LOR  for  reporting  late
for duty  on  11  Dec  74.  The  LOR  was  filed  in  his  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

The applicant failed to report for duty on 2 Jan 75 and was  AWOL  for
four days until he voluntarily returned to duty on 6 Jan 75. The first
sergeant’s statement indicates the applicant said  he  was  drunk  and
could not make it to work.

On 17 Jan 75, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for being AWOL from 2  until  6
Jan 75. After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a
trial by court-martial, did  not  request  a  personal  appearance  or
submit a written presentation. On 5 Feb 75, his  commander  found  him
guilty and imposed punishment in the form of reduction  from  sergeant
to airman first class (A1C), suspended until 30 Apr 75  unless  sooner
vacated, and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months. Applicant
did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant did not report for duty on 5 Feb 75. He told  the  first
sergeant he had overslept. He was told to report by  a  certain  time.
However, he called his supervisor and told him he had  to  go  to  the
legal, finance and other offices regarding personal  matters.  He  was
given permission to do so and told to report on time the next day.  He
reported late on 6 Feb 75 and asked his supervisor for  permission  to
get a  haircut,  which  the  supervisor  gave  because  the  applicant
apparently needed one. He never returned until the next  day,  without
having gotten a haircut. When queried, he  said  he  didn’t  have  the
money and had instead gone to his last duty section and talked to  the
men there.

The applicant failed to report for duty on 20 Feb 75 and was AWOL  for
four days until 24 Feb 75 when he voluntarily reported  to  his  unit.
The applicant again failed to report for duty on 5 Mar 75 and was AWOL
for five days until 10 Mar 75 when he voluntarily returned to duty.

On 25 Mar 75, his commander vacated the suspended reduction imposed by
Article 15 on 5 Feb 75 because of the two latest AWOL  incidents.  The
applicant did not desire a personal  appearance  and  did  not  submit
written materials. The applicant was reduced to A1C  with  a  date  of
rank (DOR) of 5 Feb 75.

On 26 Mar 75, the commander imposed another Article  15  for  the  two
AWOL incidents and further reduced the applicant to airman with a  DOR
of 25 Mar 75. The applicant did not make a presentation  and  did  not
appeal.

On 28 Mar 75, the applicant was notified of the commander’s intent  to
recommend a general discharge for the AWOL  incidents  and  the  LORs.
That same day, the commander recommended the applicant  be  discharged
with a general characterization. On 31 Mar 75, after  consulting  with
counsel, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge
board.

Legal review on 24 Apr 75 noted  that  the  record  of  rehabilitation
attempts  warranted  comment.  AFM   39-12   mandated   pre-processing
rehabilitation attempts. The Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  noted  the
record indicated only the rehabilitation effort that  is  inherent  in
the imposition of  punishment  under  Article  15  and  administrative
reprimands. The SJA added this effort met only the minimum requirement
for legal sufficiency and indicated a lack of concern  for  counseling
the applicant concerning any problems he may have  been  experiencing.
Given the minimum  rehabilitation  effort,  the  SJA  found  the  file
legally sufficient and concurred with the general discharge. Probation
and  rehabilitation  (P&R)  was  not  recommended   because   of   the
applicant’s record of misconduct and his lack of a  positive  attitude
toward rehabilitation efforts.

On 25 Apr 75, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s general
discharge.

The applicant was separated in the grade  of  airman  with  a  general
discharge on 28 Apr 75 after a total of 7 years, 7 months and 26  days
of active service. He had 18 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the  data  furnished,
they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge  was  consistent  with  governing
directives  and  within  the  discharge  authority’s  discretion.  The
applicant has not demonstrated either an error or  injustice  and  his
appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 1 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

By letter dated 14 Aug 03, the AFBCMR Staff invited the  applicant  to
submit  post-service  information.  The   Staff   also   included   an
Information Bulletin to assist him with this endeavor.  The  applicant
responded with a copy of the 5  Dec  02  personal  statement  that  he
provided earlier with his DD Form 149, and two  character  references.
One reference is from his wife and the other  appears  to  be  from  a
friend.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to  honorable.
The applicant provides no persuasive documentation showing his general
discharge was not supported by his own misconduct or was  contrary  to
the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time. The
Board can sympathize with his depression over the deterioration of his
marriage and the loss of his aircraft  career  field.  However,  these
problems  do  not  totally  mitigate  the  applicant’s  repeated  AWOL
episodes and additional infractions, which resulted in  three  Article
15s and other administrative disciplinary action.  The  applicant  now
asserts he has gotten his life back. Although invited  by  the  AFBCMR
Staff to submit post-service information demonstrating he has become a
productive member of society, the applicant provided letters only from
his wife and from someone who appears to be a friend. He has not shown
that he has been the victim of error or injustice or that his  conduct
since  his  discharge  has  overcome  his  misbehavior  while  in  the
military. As such, he has not made a case for relief on the  basis  of
either merit or clemency.  However,  should  he  provide  post-service
information such as suggested in the Information Bulletin provided  by
the AFBCMR Staff in their 14 Aug 03 letter, we would
be willing to review his  case  for  possible  reconsideration.  Until
then, 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 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 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 relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02158 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report - Negative.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Aug 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Dec 02 (duplicate of
                       statement w/Exhibit A), w/atchs.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair