RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02050
                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after  a
period of one year from date  of  the  discharge  with  an  option  to
reenlist.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  (RegAF)   on
28 December 1977 as an airman (Amn) for a period of four years.

On 7 April 1979, charges were preferred against  the  applicant  for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 16 through  20 March
1979, absented from his place of duty from 2 April through  4  April
1979, and on 15 February 1979, he made and uttered a worthless check
to the Air Base Commissary.  On 9 April 1979  the  applicant’s  case
was referred for trial to a special court-martial.

In the request for pretrial  confinement,  the  following  derogatory
information is cited:

            a.    The  applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR), dated 24 June 1978, for failure to go.

            b.    The applicant received  a  Record  of  Counseling,
dated 25 June 1978, for an unauthorized radio on post.

            c.    The applicant received  a  Record  of  Counseling,
dated 1 July 1978, for a violation of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 35-
10.

            d.    The applicant received an LOR, dated 27 July 1978,
for failure to go.

            e.    The applicant received  a  Record  of  Counseling,
dated 21 October 1978 for failure to go.

            f.    The applicant received an LOR,  dated  8  November
1978, for damage to military property.

            g.    The applicant received an LOR, dated  23  February
1979 for failure to go.

            h.    The applicant received  an  Air  Force  (AF)  Form
2098, Duty Status Change  dated  13  March  1979  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL).

            i.   The applicant received  an  Article  15,  dated  15
March 1979 for being AWOL.

            j.   The applicant received  four  statements  from  the
Flight Chief dated 16 through 19 March 1979, and two statements from
the First Sergeant dated 19 and 20 March 1979 for failure to repair.

            k.   On 2 April 1979, the applicant  received  a  letter
for failure to repair.

            l.   On 3 April 1979, the applicant received an AF  Form
2098 for being AWOL.

            m.   The applicant uttered six checks  for  insufficient
funds.

On 9  April  1979,  after  consulting  with  counsel  the  applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service.   The
applicant acknowledged in his requested for discharge  that  if  the
discharge was approved he would receive a UOTHC discharge.

On 18 April 1979, a legal review was conducted in  which  the  staff
judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with  a
UOTHC.

On 26 April 1979, the discharge authority approved the  request  for
discharge for  the  good  of  the  service  and  directed  that  the
applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.

On 9 May 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
Air  Force  Manual  (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 good of the service – in lieu of trial  by  court-
martial), with an under other than honorable  conditions  discharge,
in the grade of AB.  He served one year, three months and  two  days
of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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  servicemember'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 other facts to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based  on  the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

On 3 August 2005, the Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation pertaining to  his  activities  since  leaving  military
service.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

On 22 August 2005, the applicant requested additional time  to  submit
documentation in support of his application (Exhibit G).

On 25 August 2005, the Board staff advised  the  application  that  in
order for the Board to comply with statutory mandate  to  process  all
applications in a expeditious manner, his  request  for  an  extension
could not be honored (Exhibit H).

On 6 September 2005, the applicant submitted a rundown of  the  events
that led to his discharge and character reference letters (Exhibit I).

On 6 September 2005, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of
the FBI report for his review and response.   As  of  this  date,  the
applicant has not responded (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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 its rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.   After
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  the  Board  is  not
persuaded  to  recommend  upgrading  the  discharge.   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.  The
Board has considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in
view of the numerous instances of misconduct during the  short  period
of time he was on active duty, does not believe clemency is warranted.
 The Board noted the misconduct appears to have continued for a period
of time after the applicant was discharged.   Although  the  applicant
has provided some  statements  concerning  post-service  conduct,  the
Board finds these statements insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his
discharge on the basis of clemency at this time.   Should  he  provide
statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his
good character and reputation and other evidence of  successful  post-
service rehabilitation, the Board  would  be  willing  to  review  the
materials for possible reconsideration.  Therefore, the Board does not
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-02050  in  Executive  Session  on  12  October  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jul 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Aug 05.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 05
      Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atch.




                       MARILYN M. THOMAS
                       Vice Chair