RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02445
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 FEB 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)  discharge  be
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A few years after his discharge, he received a letter changing  it  to
“under honorable conditions.”  He does not have a copy of the letter.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 January 1968  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman with an effective date and date of rank of      14 March  1968.


Applicant’s commander notified the applicant on 10 March 1969 that  he
was recommending discharge from the Air Force for frequent involvement
of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The commander was
recommending  applicant  receive  an  under   other   than   honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge based on the following:

      (1) On  19  September  1968,  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand for failure to repair.

      (2) On 28 October 1968, applicant received  an  Article  15  for
willfully damaging military property and failure to repair.

      (3)  On  23  December  1968,  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand for failure to repair.

      (4)  On 17 January 1969, applicant received an  Article  15  for
being absent without leave (AWOL).

      (5)  On 29 January 1969, applicant received an  Article  15  for
disobeying a lawful order and for being AWOL.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel waived  his  right  to  a  hearing
before an administrative discharge  board.   The  discharge  authority
approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged  with
an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 22 April 1969 under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12,  Separation  for  Unsuitability,  Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service  and
Procedures  for   the   Rehabilitation   Program   (unfitness-frequent
involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature  with  civilian  or
military authorities), with an under other than  honorable  conditions
(undesirable) discharge. He had served on active duty for a period  of
1 year, 1 month and       29 days.

On 8 August 1969, applicant submitted an application to the Air  Force
Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his  under  other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge. The AFDRB  carefully  reviewed
and considered all the facts of record and concluded that a change  in
the type or nature of applicant’s discharge was not warranted.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  and  stated   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.  This discharge was within the discretion of the
discharge  authority.   Applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his character
of service.

AFPC/DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
19 August 2005 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, there has been no response received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After  careful  consideration
of the available evidence, we found no  indication  that  the  actions
taken to affect  his  discharge  were  improper  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing regulations in effect  at  the  time.   In
addition, in view of the fact the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide
documentation pertaining to his post service activities,  we  are  not
persuaded that  the  characterization  of  the  applicant’s  discharge
warrants an upgrade to general on the basis of clemency.  Having found
no error or injustice with regard to the actions that  occurred  while
the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis  exists
to grant favorable action on his request.
 ________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-02445  in  Executive  Session  on  13  October  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy Loeb, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 29 Jul 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair