RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00392
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he served in  a  combat  zone  and
upgrade  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)   discharge   to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general discharge should be changed to honorable.  Also, he  was
not given credit for serving under fire in Vietnam.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 October 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force
(RegAF) as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 7 September 1972, the applicant was notified of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend him for discharge for frequent involvement of  a
discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.

The  commander  stated  the  following  reasons  for  the   proposed
discharge:

      a.  On 22 November 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on
the applicant for being absent without authority.

      b.  On 27 June 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the
 applicant for  failure  to  repair on  20-21 June 1972  and
26-27 June 1972.

      c.  On  12  July  1972,  the  applicant  received  nonjudicial
punishment for failure to repair on 9-10 July 1972.

      d.  On 3 August 1972, the  applicant  was  returned  from  his
Temporary Duty (TDY) location for substandard duty performance.

      e.  On 10 August 1972, the applicant was placed in T Status on
training because of nonprogression on his CDC’s and his  refusal  to
complete his End of Course Test while he was TDY.

      f.  On 17 August 1972, the applicant was counseled for failing
to properly wear the uniform.

      g.  On  18  August  1972,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for
extending his lunch break.

      h.  On 29 August  1972,  the  applicant  was  administratively
reprimanded for failing to properly wear the uniform.

The commander advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge  board;  be
represented by legal counsel at a board hearing;  submit  statements
in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the board  hearing;
or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 12 September 1972, after consulting with counsel,  the  applicant
waived his right to an administrative discharge  board  and  invoked
his right to submit a statement.

A legal review was conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge  advocate
recommended the applicant be separated from the  Air  Force  with  a
general discharge with probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 September 1972, the discharge authority directed the applicant
be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 10 October 1972, in the grade of  airman
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance
with AFM 39-12 (unfitness - frequent involvement in incidents  of  a
discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  He served
a total of 1 year, 11 months and 12 days of active service.

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

On 2 March 2005, a DD Form 215 was issued to add the Vietnam  Service
Medal (VSM) to his DD Form 214.  Therefore, the only remaining  issue
to be considered by the Board is the applicant’s request  to  upgrade
his general discharge to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not  provide  any  facts  to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
18 March 2005, for  review  and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 30 March 2005, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation  regarding  his  activities  since  leaving   military
service (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 of timely file.

3.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  an  injustice.   The
applicant’s application is somewhat  vague  regarding  his  apparent
request for combat service credit in  Vietnam  and  Thailand.   That
being said, we took note of the documentation provided in support of
his  request  and  we  note  the  applicant’s  records   have   been
administratively corrected to reflect award of the  Vietnam  Service
Medal.  The applicant’s records also reflect he had 7 months and  20
days of  foreign  service  and  he  has  provided  no  documentation
indicating this is inaccurate.   Likewise,  the  applicant  has  not
provided documentation indicating he was  not  properly  compensated
for any TDYs or his overseas duty.  Therefore,  we  believe  his  DD
Form 214 is accurate.  With respect to the  applicant’s  request  to
have  his  discharge  upgraded,  we  agree  with  the  opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis
for our decision that 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
of the discharge and the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were
appropriate and accomplished in accordance with  Air  Force  policy.
Although the applicant did not  specifically  request  consideration
based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to  warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on  that  basis.   The
applicant failed to respond to a request  to  provide  documentation
regarding his activities and accomplishments since leaving  military
service.  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-2005-00392  in  Executive  Session  on  17  May  2005  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Mar 05, w/atch.




                                        LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                        Panel Chair