RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01227
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Looking back over his life he believes during his time in the Air  Force  he
made bad choices and could have handled situations differently.  He  desires
his discharge upgraded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 December 1965 in the  grade
of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 14 July 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial  for
the following offense:

Charge:  Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86.

Specification:  The applicant did on or about 2 March 1966,  without  proper
authority, absent himself from his organization, and did  remain  so  absent
until on or about 20 May 1966.

The applicant was found guilty of the  specification  and  charge.   He  was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for  five  months,  a  forfeiture  of
$60.00 per month for three months and  a  reduction  in  grade  from  airman
third class to airman basic.


The sentence was adjudged on 1 July 1966.

On 21 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial  for
the following offense:

Charge:  Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86.

Specification:  The applicant did on  or  about  19  January  1967,  without
proper authority, absent himself from his unit, and  did  remain  so  absent
until on or about 6 June 1967.

On 22  June  1967,  after  consulting  with  legal  counsel,  the  applicant
submitted a request  for  discharge  for  the  good  of  the  service.   The
applicant  indicated  he  understood  if  his  request  for  discharge   was
approved, it could result in an  undesirable  discharge,  he  would  not  be
entitled to settlement for accrued leave, he may be  deprived  of  veterans’
benefits, and may  encounter  substantial  prejudice  in  civilian  life  in
situations where the type of service rendered in any  branch  of  the  Armed
Forces or the type of discharge received there from may have a bearing.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for  discharge  the  applicant
had a character and behavior disorder which had played  a  significant  part
in his misconduct.  It would be to the best interests of both the Air  Force
and the applicant to approve the  request  for  discharge.   Notwithstanding
the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct, the ends of justice would  be
met by the approval of the request for discharge.

On 7 July 1967, the findings  of  a  psychiatric  evaluation  indicated  the
applicant was diagnosed as having immature  personality,  passive  dependent
type,  manifested  by  inability  to  appropriately  express   feelings   of
hostility or anger toward authority figures, inability to  tolerate  absence
from significant family figures, allowing other figures to make  significant
decisions in his life, passicity in stressful  or  crisis  situations.   The
applicant was suffering from a character and behavior disorder  of  lifelong
duration,  which  was  not   felt   would   be   amenable   to   retraining,
reclassification, rehabilitation,  hospitalization,  outpatient  psychiatric
treatment  or  disciplinary  action.   The  applicant  was  sane,  able   to
distinguish between right and wrong, and to adhere to  the  right.   He  was
able to participate in his own defense  and  understand  board  proceedings.
He was  cleared  psychiatrically  for  any  administrative  or  disciplinary
action deemed necessary by command.  There was no reason  for  consideration
of separation from the service for psychiatric reasons.

On 12 July 1967, the  commander  recommended  the  applicant’s  request  for
discharge be approved.


On 24 July 1967, the Office of the Surgeon indicated a review of the  report
of medical examination indicated there were no mental  or  physical  defects
which would preclude administrative separation.  They further indicated  the
medical clearance was granted.

On 31  July  1967,  the  Assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be separated with an undesirable discharge.

On 3 August 1967, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 11 August 1967, in the  grade  of  airman  basic
with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge,  under  the
provisions of  AFM  39-12  (Request  for  Discharge  for  the  Good  of  the
Service).  He served one year, one month, and  five  days  of  total  active
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated the discharge was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  The discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant requested discharge for the good  of  the  service
and has not submitted any evidence or identified any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to the character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter to the President of the United States, the  applicant  indicates
he desires his discharge upgraded to  receive  benefits  that  most  Vietnam
Veterans  have.   His  records  indicate  he  absented  himself   from   his
organization without proper authority; however, the record does not  explain
why he was absent.  He states he went  home  to  help  his  mother  who  was
mentally unstable and going through a divorce.

Applicant’s complete response 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant requested discharge  for
the good of the service.  As such, the applicant has failed  to  demonstrate
the commander  exceeded  his  authority  or  the  characterization  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.   The  Board  believes  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting  the  separation,  and
the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations  were
violated or the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which  entitled
at the time of discharge.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
01227 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 22 March 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 April 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                Panel Chair