RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01040
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Substance abuse played a role in his AWOL time.  He has since  changed
his life and is now a respected member of his community.  He  implores
the court or panel to remove this black mark from his life.  He served
honorably up until this incident.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 February 1971 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He was promoted  to
the grade of airman on 25 March 1971, and the grade  of  airman  first
class on 1 September 1971.

Applicant received punishment by Article 15 dated 14 June 1971 for the
following:  He did, at Sheppard Air Force Base, on or about  1  and  2
June 1971, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his
appointed place of duty, to wit:  Course #43131C-1, Building 1020,  in
violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Punishment
consisted of reduction to  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  ordered  to
forfeit $30.00, ordered  to  perform  extra  duty  for  14  days,  and
restricted to the  limits  of  Sheppard  AFB  for  14  days,  but  the
execution of that portion of this punishment which  provides  for  the
reduction to the grade of airman basic is suspended  until  13  August
1971, at which time,  unless  sooner  vacated,  it  will  be  remitted
without further action.  These punishments are to run concurrently.

Records indicate applicant was  reported  AWOL  from  6  October  1971
through 8 October 1971; 14 October 1971 through 13 November 1971;  and
from 7 December 1971 to 9 June 1972 (a total of seven months  and  six
days).

On 10 May 1972, applicant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery  in  the
second degree.  On 6 and 9 June 1972, sentencing was deferred with the
express understanding that the defendant, who was AWOL from the  armed
forces, and who had a “hold” on him as a result, would be turned  over
to the armed forces and dealt with accordingly.  When the armed forces
was finished with him, the defendant would turn himself  over  to  the
Samaritan Halfway  Society,  a  residential  drug  program  which  has
already worked with and accepted the defendant.

On 13 June 1972, applicant was served with court-martial  charges  for
being absent without leave from on or about 7 December 1971 to  on  or
about 9 June 1972 (a total of six months and three  days).   The  case
was referred to trial by special court-martial on 13 June 1972.

On 16 June 1972, applicant submitted a request for discharge under the
provisions of AFM 39-12 for the good of the  service.   He  understood
that if his request for discharge was approved he may receive an under
other than  honorable  conditions  (undesirable)  discharge.   He  was
afforded the opportunity  to  consult  with  legal  counsel  prior  to
submitting the request for discharge.

On 28 June 1972, the base legal office reviewed the case and found  it
legally sufficient to  support  discharge  action.   They  recommended
applicant be separated from the Air Force and  issued  an  undesirable
discharge.  The base legal office did provide the following  comments:
(1) On 20 June 1972, the administrative discharge action began,  based
on applicant’s request for discharge for  the  good  of  the  service.
After consulting with legal counsel, applicant submitted  a  statement
indicating he was addicted to heroin.  (2) Applicant sought help  from
the Air Force drug rehabilitation program before he went AWOL, but the
attempt failed.

On 18 July 1972, Headquarters 21st Air Force legal office reviewed the
case and found it legally  sufficient  and  recommended  applicant  be
discharged for the good of the  service  and  receive  an  undesirable
discharge.  Additionally, they indicate that  perhaps  the  overriding
consideration in this case is applicant’s drug addiction.

The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for
the good of the service and directed an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 20 July 1972  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12,  Separation  for  Unsuitability,  Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the good of the Service  and
Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (request for  discharge  for
the  good  of  the  service),  with  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He served 10 months and 7 days on
active duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 June 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response.  On 29 June 2004, the applicant
was invited to provide information pertaining to his activities  since
leaving the service.  On 8 July 2004, a copy of  the  applicant’s  FBI
Report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit
E).

Applicant states that he does not have any excuses for his behavior at
the time.  He was a twenty year old substance  abuser  and  has  since
changed his life.  He left the Air Force with the intention of finding
help for substance abuse and was successful in making a good life  for
his wife and children.  Over the past thirty years, he  has  regretted
his actions and has had to bear  the  disgrace  of  having  gotten  an
undesirable discharge.  His life now is very different and he now  has
the respect of his colleagues and friends.  His  son  is  now  twenty-
three and thinking of going into the service, but didn’t know  of  his
discharge and he had to tell  him  about  the  mistake.   It  was  the
hardest thing he has had to do in a long time.  This he knows  is  not
an issue for the board, but he would like to hold his head  up  again.
In support of his appeal, he provided four character  references.   He
hopes the Board will see fit to give him a second chance.  A  copy  of
applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

In response to the FBI report, applicant states that  he  was  a  drug
user and he did the things stated in the report, of which  he  is  not
proud.  In 1992, he entered treatment at Samaritan Village in  Queens,
New York.  This is a therapeutic community where he  was  treated  and
taught how to cope with his addiction.  He remained there for eighteen
months and graduated a better person  who  now  believes  in  himself.
Many people will say that once a junkie always a junkie; he is  living
testimony, that this is not true.  He celebrated twelve years sober in
March.  His family now has their father, son and brother back.  In the
past twelve years he has struggled to make amends  to  those  whom  he
hurt and to reconstruct  his  life.   He  has  been  blessed  to  have
succeeded and now have good friends and a great career  with  Columbia
University.  He is a trusted member of the community and he holds that
trust dear.  This is just another  step  in  that  reconstruction,  he
would like the opportunity to  say  that  he  knows  he  is  not  owed
anything.  He is just praying that the Board will show  him  clemency.
He is now the grandfather to five lovely children and he would like to
be able to say  that  he  has  an  honorable  discharge.   A  copy  of
applicant’s response, 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 probable 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.   The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that the information in his
discharge case file was erroneous, his  service  characterization  was
contrary to the governing regulation then in effect, or his commanders
abused their  discretionary  authority.   We  also  find  insufficient
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on
the basis of clemency.  We  have  reviewed  the  statements  provided;
however, we note  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  in  1972  and
continued to commit offenses until 1991.  While it does appear that he
has been a law abiding citizen since 1991, we do not find the  limited
documents provided warrants an upgrade of his discharge.   Should  the
applicant  provide  more  detailed  statements   pertaining   to   his
conduct/character since 1991, the Board would be willing to reconsider
his request.  In view of the above determination,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________


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 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jun 04.
      Exhibit E. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jun 04, 29 Jun 04 and
                                8 Jul 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 29 Jul 04.




                             EDWARD H. PARKER
                             Panel Chair