RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00364
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time  of  his  discharge,  it  was  explained  to  him  that  if  he
voluntarily left the service his discharge could be changed  and  he  could
receive benefits.  He did not read the discharge.  He signed  it  based  on
the explanation he had received.  Had he known he would not have agreed  to
a dishonorable discharge.  He would have stayed in and fought the discharge
action.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 February 1965, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 1 February 1967, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
recommend him for discharge for unfitness.  The specific  reasons  for  the
discharge action are:

      a.  On or about 11 December 1965, the applicant committed assault and
battery with a dangerous weapon on V. H.  He was tried and convicted  on  8
April 1966 of Assault and Battery and Disorderly Conduct.   His  punishment
consisted of paying fines and 15 days in jail.   The  court  suspended  the
jail sentence for one year on the condition the applicant remained on  good
behavior.

      b.  On 10 September 1966, the applicant was apprehended by the  South
Dakota Highway Patrol  for  speeding.   For  this  offense,  the  applicant
appeared in civil court and was ordered to pay a fine.   In  addition,  the
applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and was scheduled to  attend
remedial driver’s training.

      c.  On or about 1 November 1966, the applicant failed  to  report  at
the prescribed time to  his  place  of  duty.   For  this  misconduct,  the
applicant received an Article 15 and was ordered to correctional custody at
the Base Confinement Facility.

       d.   On  or  about  17  November  1966,  the  applicant,  willfully,
unlawfully and with force and violence, did corporal hurt  another  person.
On 30 November 1966, the applicant was tried and convicted by civil  court.
His punishment consisted of 10 days of hard labor in the  city  jail.   The
court suspended the jail  sentence  for  one  year  on  the  condition  the
applicant remained on good behavior.

      e.  On or about 10 January 1967, the applicant was  derelict  in  the
performance in his duties in that he fell asleep  during  his  normal  duty
hours.  For this misconduct, the applicant received an Article 15.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel
and  that  military  legal  counsel  had  been  obtained  for  him;  to  an
administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his own  behalf;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 1 February 1967, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification
letter and that military counsel was made  available  to  assist  him;  and
after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit  a
statement.

A legal review was conducted on 9 March  1967  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a  general  discharge
with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 28 March 1967,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge  and
directed the applicant be discharged with an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 3 April 1967, in  the  grade  of  airman  third
class  with  an  under  other  than  honorable   conditions   (undesirable)
discharge, in accordance with  AFM  39-12,  Separation  for  Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for  Discharge  for  the  Good  of  the
Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (frequent involvement
of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  He served 2
years, 1 month and 18 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of  his
discharge.  Based upon the documentation  in  the  applicant's  file,  they
believe his discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulations  of  that  time.   Also,  the
discharge was within the  sound  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his  discharge.
Based  on  the  information  and  evidence  provided  they  recommend   the
applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  states  all  charges
against him were dropped.  He further states the reason he was  in  trouble
was due to his being in a prejudiced environment.

The applicant provided character letters and  documentation  regarding  his
workers’ compensation and a copy of his criminal history from the state  of
South Dakota (Exhibit F).

On 5 May 2004, the Board staff forwarded a copy of the FBI  report  to  the
applicant for his review and response (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 an error or an injustice.  We took notice of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based  on
the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing and
the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished  in
accordance with Air Force policy.

4.  Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based
on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation
the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  The applicant  has  not  provided
information of his post-service activities and accomplishments.  Therefore,
based on the evidence of  record,  we  cannot  conclude  that  clemency  is
warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-
00364 in Executive Session on 22 July 2004 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 04, w/atch.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair