RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01797
            INDEX CODE:  106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 DEC 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1968 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served faithfully in time of war.  The  situation  was  a  personal
misunderstanding.  This was during the Vietnam War years and he was  a
very dedicated soldier.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jun 66, and  was
assigned to Dover AFB,  DE,  as  an  apprentice  aircraft  maintenance
specialist.  He did not serve over in Vietnam.

On 20 Aug 67, the  First  Sergeant  advised  the  commander  that  the
applicant’s  “lackadaisical  performance”  and   constant   need   for
counseling warranted observation for 30 days  by  direct  supervision,
followed  by  consideration  for  separation  as  being  in  the  best
interests of the applicant and the Air Force.

On 4 Oct 67, the  commander  imposed  Article  15  punishment  on  the
applicant for failing to go to his appointed place of duty  on  11 Sep
67.  The applicant submitted no matters  for  consideration.   He  was
reduced from airman third class to airman basic,  with  forfeiture  of
$40.00 pay per month for one month.  He did not appeal.

A 22 Jan 68 Incident Report disclosed an investigation  was  initiated
on 10 Jan 68, based on information that the applicant allegedly  owned
and maintained an unregistered firearm in his barracks  and  was  seen
inhaling  vapors  of  model  airplane  glue  to  reach  a   state   of
intoxication.  The investigation concluded that  applicant  failed  to
register a firearm and did inhale the vapors of  model  airplane  glue
for the purpose of vapor intoxication.  On 22 Jan  68,  the  commander
imposed Article 15 punishment for intentionally inhaling the vapors of
model airplane glue on or about 8 and 10 Jan 68, for  the  purpose  of
intoxication.   He  was  sentenced  to  correctional  custody  for  30
consecutive days.  He did not appeal.

On 30 Jan 68, a Dr. S-- at the 1607th USAF Hospital at Dover AFB,  DE,
performed an psychiatric exam for purposes of discharge and found  the
applicant to be an emotionally unstable personality  characterized  by
poor control of impulses, low tolerance for frustration, and inability
to follow through on realistic goals.  He was not found  to  have  any
mental  or  physical  condition  warranting   separation   under   the
disability system.

On 15 Feb 68, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend a general discharge due to the existence of a character  and
behavior disorder described and verified by Dr. S-- (see above).   The
commander also cited the two Articles 15.  The applicant  acknowledged
receipt.

On 15 Feb  68,  the  commander  recommended  the  applicant’s  general
discharge for the reasons cited above.  He advised the  applicant  had
been repeatedly counseled  and  all  attempts  at  rehabilitation  had
failed.  On 19 Feb 68, the Evaluation  Officer  (EO)  interviewed  the
respondent.  The applicant could not  make  up  his  mind  whether  to
submit his prepared rebuttal and eventually withdrew it and waived his
right to submit  same.   The  EO  concurred  with  the  psychiatrist’s
evaluation and the commander’s recommendation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and, on 21 Feb 68, the
applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic with  a  general
characterization of service, after 1 year, 7 months  and  23  days  of
active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  contends  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation,
and was within the discharge authority’s  discretion.   The  applicant
has not shown he sustained an error or an injustice  and  his  request
should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 8 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

On 12 Aug 05, a complete copy of the FBI report was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 20 days.   As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded.   His  contentions
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these   uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the evidence of record  or  the  rationale  of  the  Air  Force.   The
applicant  has  not  shown  his  general  discharge  was  unwarranted,
improper,   or   beyond   the   discharge   authority’s    discretion.
Additionally, based on the contents of the FBI Identification  Record,
we are not  persuaded  that  the  characterization  of  his  discharge
warrants an upgrade to honorable on the basis of  clemency.   In  this
regard, the applicant has not demonstrated that he is a  rehabilitated
and law-abiding member of society.  Absent persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, the  applicant  has  not  sustained  his  burden  of  having
suffered either an error or an injustice and  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01797 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Aug 05




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair