RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00381
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 DECEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was deceived into believing his discharge would be honorable. He did  not
realize it was a general discharge until the date of his discharge.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty  and    DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the  Armed  Forces
of the United States.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Air Force on 23 July  1974,  for  a  term  of
four years and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2).

Between November 1974 and January 1976, the applicant  received  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, three times  and  also  had  a  suspended
nonjudicial punishment vacated. Among the applicant's misconduct  documented
in these adverse actions were failures to  go,  absent  without  leave,  and
possession of marijuana.

On 30 April 1976, he was administratively separated from the Air Force  with
a general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  pursuant  to  AFM  39-12,
Separation  for  Unsuitability,  Misconduct,  Resignation,  or  Request  for
Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the  Rehabilitation
Program, for unfitness by reason of frequent involvement of a  discreditable
nature with military authorities. After the applicant received  notification
of the proposed discharge action  and  consulted  with  his  military  legal
counsel,  he  waived  his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an  administrative
discharge board conditioned upon  his  receiving  no  less  than  a  general
discharge.  The  applicant  did  provide  a  statement  to  the   separation
authority in which he alleges certain errors in his discharge  package  that
may make him entitled to a better discharge. The base legal office  reviewed
the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to  support  separation  and
recommended  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under   honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an  Investigation  Report  pertaining  to
the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states 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.

The applicant did not submit any new 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' complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial and states this application was not  timely  filed
and should be denied on that basis alone. The applicant  possessed  all  the
information necessary to  pursue  his  claim  long  before  the  statute  of
limitations expired and he offers  no  meaningful  explanation  for  why  he
waited 22 years for his discharge to be reviewed. He claims in his  petition
to the AFBCMR that he was not aware that the "option to correct  this  error
of judgment was available". In JA's opinion, the interest of  justice  would
not be served by excusing the  applicant's  failure  to  submit  this  issue
within  the  required  time  period;  such  waivers  should  be  limited  to
situations to preclude an actual injustice.

AFPC/JA's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  7
April 2006, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

A copy of the FBI was forwarded to the applicant on 22 May 2006, for  review
and comment within 14 days.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the  evidence
of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  any
corrective   action   is   warranted.    We   therefore   agree   with   the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden
of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  No  evidence  has  been
submitted which would lead us to believe that the  characterization  of  his
service was improper.  In addition, in view  of  the  contents  of  the  FBI
Report of Investigation, we  are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge to honorable is warranted on the basis  of
clemency.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find  no
basis upon which to favorably consider his request.

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 issues 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 probable 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-BC-2006-
00381 in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Eddie C. Lewis, Member
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B. Applicant's Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Mar 06
    Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
    Exhibit F. FBI Report, dated 8 May 06
    Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 May 06.





                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                             Panel Chair