RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03466
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  be  upgraded  to  an  honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  desires  his  discharge  be  upgraded.   He  apologizes  and   ask   for
forgiveness for any trouble he caused while in the service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant with prior  honorable  service  in  the  Air  National  Guard,
Regular Army, and the Air Force Reserves, enlisted in the Regular Air  Force
on 3 July 1967 for a period of four years.

In an undated memorandum, the applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

            He did, on or about 18 November 1968, without proper  authority,
absent himself from his organization, to wit: 2106  Communications  Squadron
located at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and did remain  so  absent  until
on or about 27 November 1968, in violation of Article 86,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ).





The applicant was found guilty by his commander who  imposed  the  following
punishment: a reduction in grade from sergeant to airman first class, and  a
forfeiture of $82.00 per month for two months,  but  the  execution  of  the
portion of punishment which provides for reduction to the  grade  of  airman
first class was suspended until 2 June 1969, at  which  time  unless  sooner
vacated would be remitted without further action.

On 4 December  1968,  the  applicant  indicated  he  would  not  appeal  the
punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his  Unfavorable  Information  File
(UIF).

On 16 December 1968, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him for Unsuitability  -  specifically,
financial irresponsibility.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant had  been  counseled  on  numerous  occasions  in  regard  to  his
nonpayment of bills and each time  his  attitude  was  one  of  concern  but
nothing was ever done.  All efforts to rehabilitate had proved futile.   The
specific reasons for  making  this  recommendation  were  as  follows:   the
commander  received  telephone  calls  and  letters  from   local   business
establishments concerning the indebtedness of the  applicant.   The  letters
were as follows:

        Household Finance Company, three letters stating the  applicant  was
four months in arrears and had an outstanding balance of $576.00.

         Personal  Credit  Plan  Incorporated,  four  letters  stating   the
applicant was three months in arrears and  had  an  outstanding  balance  of
$114.00

        Banner Loan Company Number 2, two letters stating the applicant  was
three months in arrears and had an outstanding balance of $43.57.

        Weil and Besch Attorneys at Law, two letters stating  the  applicant
was three months in arrears and had an outstanding balance of $10.00.

        Wandels Auto Medic Center, one letter stating the applicant was  one
month in arrears and had an outstanding balance of $27.24.

         G.F.C.  Loan  Company,  one  letter  of  idebtedness  stating   the
applicant was two months in  arrears  and  had  an  outstanding  balance  of
$550.00.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to  appear  before  an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  (ADB),  to  submit
statements in his own behalf, or to waive the above rights.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to an ADB  and
to submit statements in his own behalf.

A Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 13 January  1969,  indicates  the  applicant
was referred to the  Mental  Hygiene  Division  on  7 January  1969  for  an
evaluation of continuous irresponsibility manifested by a history  of  going
AWOL, poor financial management, poor  family  relationships  and  extremely
poor work relationships.  The  applicant  was  originally  referred  to  the
Mental Hygiene Division on 19 September 1968 by his squadron  commander  for
an evaluation of impulsive and irresponsible behavior in both  his  personal
and occupational life.  A reexamination of  tests  performed  at  that  time
indicated the applicant was an extremely evasive, shallow,  and  superficial
person  who  had  marked  difficulty  in  interpersonal  relationships.   He
appeared to be extremely impulsive, somewhat poorly organized and tended  to
disregard the important detail which  was  important  in  understanding  the
composition of the whole person.  Diagnostic impression appeared to be  that
of an  emotionally  unstable  personality  with  a  number  of  psychopathic
trends.  His behavior was characterized by  irresponsibility,  manipulation,
evasiveness and  superficiality  in  interpersonal  relationships.   It  was
apparent that  under  stress  and  performance  demands,  his  judgment  was
unreliable.  His stress level was minimal, his predisposition was  moderate.
 The evaluation further indicated in view  of  the  applicant’s  failure  to
respond to more restrictive controls, it was felt he would  be  unlikely  to
cope effectively with future military service.  There  was  no  evidence  of
psychiatric disorder under  AFM  35-4.   An  administrative  separation  was
recommended.

On 5 October 1971,  the  Assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a  general  discharge  under
the provisions of Chapter 2, Section A, Paragraph 2-4b, AFM  39-12,  without
rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge.

On 4 March 1969, the applicant was discharged with service characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions) in the  grade  of  sergeant  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-12 -  Unsuitability.   The  applicant’s  DD  Form  214,
Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  Report  of  Transfer  or  Discharge,
indicates he served 5 years, 1 month, and 17 days of  total  active  service
with 16 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to  identify  with  an
arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that the discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing,  nor  did  he  provide  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates he was not charged  with
financial irresponsibility - it was  breech  of  security  and  leaving  the
crypto room ajar while answering telephones.  He was a  telephone  operator,
watts operator, and worked crypto graphics in the communication center.   He
was arrested for breech of security by the Air Police.

The history of his being AWOL is not true.  He  overextended  a  visit  with
his wife.  He telephoned his superior and was told he had  time  to  return.
When he did not meet the deadline - he turned himself  in  to  the  Marshall
County Sheriff’s Office where he was not allowed to make  a  telephone  call
until three days later.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

On 5 January 2006, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  G).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been 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  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
discharge be  upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge.   The  Board  believes
responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  effecting   the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
03466 in Executive Session on 7 February 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Dec 05
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Dec 05.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jan 06.





                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair