RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
00987
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 SEPTEMBER 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The basis for his discharge  was  because  he  was  involved  in  a
motorcycle accident in  Thailand  involving  the  disability  of  a
pedestrian.  Although he violated orders, he was led to believe the
accident was his fault.  He was later exonerated of the charges but
was not notified until after his discharge.

He acknowledges the fact that he  disobeyed  directives  concerning
the operation of a motorcycle in Thailand.  However, if he had been
provided adequate counsel, support from his superiors, and  advised
that the decision concerning his fault in the accident had  cleared
him, he  would  not  have  elected  the  discharge.   The  decision
concerning the outcome of  the  investigation  exonerating  him  of
fault in the accident was made six days  prior  to  his  discharge.
Although the discharge consisted of several  insubordinate  issues,
to include behavior after the accident, he  believes  those  events
would not have happened had his  unit  supported  him  with  proper
counsel and withheld judgment  and  adjudication  until  after  the
investigation was finalized.  His actions  as  a  naïve,  immature,
insolent and frightened 20-year-old should not be held against  him
his entire life.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19  Aug  64,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman first class.

On 1 Sep 67, the squadron commander notified the applicant that  he
was  recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for
unsuitability (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature  with
civil or  military  authorities).   The  commander  recommended  he
receive a general discharge.  The reasons for the  proposed  action
were: (1) On 28 Mar 67, applicant was subject of an incident report
for being drunk in a public place, for which he received  a  verbal
reprimand; (2) On 9 Jul 67, applicant was subject  of  an  incident
report for illegally operating a two wheeled motor vehicle  without
an operator’s permit and was responsible for an accident in which a
Thai national female was permanently disabled; and (3)  On  27  Jul
67, applicant was subject of an incident report for being drunk  in
public,  disorderly  conduct,  communicating   threats,   provoking
speech, gestures, and profane  and  abusive  language.   For  these
offenses and the incident on 9 Jul 67, he received an  Article  15,
with punishment consisting of a reduction in grade to A3C (E-2) and
restriction to the base for 60 days.

On 6 Sep 67, after consulting with counsel, applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the discharge notification and waived  his  right  to  a
hearing before an administrative discharge board and did not submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 12 Sep 67, special court-martial charges were preferred  against
the applicant for assault upon  another  airman  with  a  dangerous
weapon, to wit:  a bottle, on or about 9 Sep 67, and  for  breaking
restriction.

On 13 Sep 67, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  requested
discharge for the good of the service and acknowledged that if  his
request for discharge was approved, he could receive an under other
than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

On 16  Sep  67,  the  squadron  commander  recommended  applicant’s
request for discharge be approved  and  that  he  be  furnished  an
undesirable discharge, noting the special court-martial charges and
discharge action for frequent  involvement.   The  group  commander
concurred with the squadron commander’s recommendation.

On 26 Sep 67, the Numbered Air Force Staff Judge Advocate found the
case file legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request be
granted and that he be separated with an undesirable discharge.  On
17 Oct 67, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request
for discharge and directed he be separated with an under other than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 26 Oct 67,  in  the  grade  of  airman,
under the provisions of  AFM  39-12,  with  separation  designation
number 246 (Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service), and
was issued an under other than honorable  conditions  (undesirable)
discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 28  days  of
active military service (excludes 10  days  of  lost  time  due  to
confinement).

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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that based on the documentation  on  file  in
the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural  and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.   The  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge  authority.   Additionally,  the  applicant  provided  no
evidence or identified any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change
to the character of his service.

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter dated 5 May 05, applicant provided additional evidence as
to why the character of his discharge should be upgraded.   Had  he
known he would be granted a less than honorable discharge he  would
have never agreed to a discharge.  His Article  15  resulted  in  a
reduction in rank  and  30  days  restriction.   He  completed  his
restriction and requested permission from  the  first  sergeant  to
leave the base.  His first sergeant denied him permission to  leave
the base and basically placed him in a restricted status.  This was
a clear violation of his rights.  Only the Commanding  Officer  has
the right and authority to restrict personnel to the base.  He left
the base and got into a verbal argument with his  girlfriend.   Two
army personnel intervened, one pulling a knife.   His  only  weapon
was a beer bottle.  At the time of the incident he was not under  a
restriction.  He had already served his  30  days,  and  the  first
sergeant did not have the authority to restrict him (Exhibit F).

On 11 May 05, a  copy  of  the  FBI  Report  of  Investigation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and  comment.   At  the  same
time, the Board staff invited him to provide information pertaining
to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G).  To  date,
no response has been received.

___________________________________________________________________

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  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing manual in effect  at  the  time
and we find no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s separation
from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error
in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  that
has been submitted in support of  applicant’s  appeal,  we  do  not
believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the
available evidence of record,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2005-
00987 in Executive Session on 26 May 2005, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 May 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair