RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02862
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was highly advised to take this discharge by his  attorney  at  the
time. In early 1971 he had written to his congressman about his  first
sergeant and  problems  he  was  having  with  him.   A  congressional
investigation  was  started  and  that  is  when  the  base  commander
recommended that he be discharged.  He was actually  trying  to  leave
McGuire and transfer to another base.  He was going to make  a  career
of the Air Force.  At the same time he was having problems with a girl
friend back home.  He was an aircraft loadmaster on a C-141  and  flew
several missiles into Vietnam.  He cannot get the Vermont Medal  under
current discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form  214
and a letter from his senator.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20  June  1969  in  the
grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.    He   was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman on 5  August  1969,  and
the grade of airman first class on 1 February 1970.  He  received  two
Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 1 August 1970 and 1 February
1971, in which the overall evaluations were “9” and “3.”

On 24 March 1971, applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending  a  general  discharge  for  frequent  involvement  of  a
discreditable nature with military authorities.  Basis for the action:
 Article 15, dated 4 September 1970, for failure to repair; punishment
consisted of reduction  to  airman  (suspended  for  six  months)  and
forfeiture of $25  for  two  months;  vacation  of  suspension  on  13
November 1970 for failure to repair on 28, 29 and 30  September  1970;
Article 15, dated 2 March 1971,  for  failure  to  repair,  punishment
consisted of reduction to airman basic (suspended for six months),  30
days of extra duty and forfeiture of $25 for two months;  vacation  of
suspension and Article 15, dated 10 March 1971, for failure to obey  a
lawful order on 8 March 1971; punishment  consisted  of  reduction  to
airman basic vacated and restriction to base for 30 days; and a Letter
of Reprimand, dated 24 March 1971, for dereliction in  performance  of
duty (failure to repair) on 21 March 1971.  His commander  recommended
a general discharge.  On 6 April 1971,  after  consulting  with  legal
advisor, he waived his right to present matters to  an  administrative
discharge board and declined  to  submit  statements.   He  stated  he
understood he could receive a general discharge and that he  might  be
denied veterans’ benefits as a result  of  the  discharge.   The  base
legal services reviewed the case and found it  legally  sufficient  to
support the discharge.   The  judge  advocate  recommended  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R)  because  of  the
frequency  of  applicant’s  offenses  and  his  negative  response  to
counseling.  The Discharge Authority reviewed the case and  ordered  a
general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  was
separated from the Air Force on 27 April 1971 under the provisions  of
AFR 39-12 (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature
with  military  or  civilian  authorities)  with  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He served one year,  ten  months  and
eight days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were
unable to locate an arrest record, which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe 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.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  the
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he has learned many things in life.   He  thinks
his biggest one was how to deal with his own problems and keep himself
out of trouble.  He doesn’t blame the first sergeant  for  everything,
but he didn’t help when he was having problems.  He does feel that  he
has learned from his mistakes and corrected them.   If  he  knew  back
then what he knows now, he might have been able to avoid  the  trouble
he got himself into.

He had never given any thought to this until recently when Vermont was
awarding medals for veterans who had served in  Vietnam.   He  figured
that he deserved one also  because  he  went  to  Vietnam  on  several
missions.  However, they will only award the medal to someone with  an
honorable discharge.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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 reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His  contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  BC-
2003-02862, in  Executive  Session  on  4  December  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Sep 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated.




                             CATHLYNN SPARKS
                             Panel Chair