RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2006-
00424
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 AUGUST 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge is through his own immaturity.  He tried  to  do  his
best.  He is now 51 years of age and would like to  know  if  there
are any benefits he can receive for the time he served.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Apr  74,  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1),  for  a  period  of  six  years.   His
highest grade held was airman first class.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                            OVERALL EVALUATION

        30   Mar   78                                             5
(Referral)
      20 Mar 77                                          8
       5 Apr 76                                          8


On 13 Apr 78, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was  recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for
unsuitability (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature  with
military authorities).  The commander  recommended  he  receive  an
undesirable discharge.  The reasons for the proposed  action  were:
(1) On 14 Feb 75, applicant  was  convicted  by  a  Special  Court-
Martial for being absent without authority (AWOL) on two occasions,
on or about (o/a) 6 Dec 74 until o/a 21 Jan 75 and o/a 24 Jan 75 to
o/a 8 Feb 75.  Punishment consisted of confinement  to  hard  labor
for two months and forfeiture of $200.00  pay  per  month  for  two
months; (2) O/a 19 Nov 75, applicant received  an  Article  15  for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.   Punishment  imposed
was forfeiture of $25.00 and a  suspended  reduction  in  grade  to
airman basic; (3) O/a 2 Feb  76,  applicant  was  identified  as  a
possessor of marijuana and entered into Phase I of  the  Air  Force
Drug and Rehabilitation Program.   He  successfully  completed  the
program on 6 Dec 76; (4) On 11  Aug  77,  applicant  was  counseled
concerning his lack of initiative and for  being  late  on  several
occasions; (5) On  16  Aug  77,  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for being late  for  work;  (6)  O/a  28  Aug  77,
applicant received an LOC for driving a government vehicle  without
a government drivers license; (7) O/a 30 Aug 77, applicant received
an Article 15 for being disrespectful in language toward a superior
noncommissioned officer (MSgt).  Punishment imposed was  forfeiture
of $97.00 and a suspended reduction in grade  to  airman;  (8)  O/a
7 and 26 Nov 77 and 4 Jan 78, applicant  received  LOCs  for  being
late for work; (9) O/a 27 Mar 78, applicant received an Article  15
for failure to obey the lawful order of a superior  noncommissioned
officer concerning wearing the proper uniform.  Punishment  imposed
was a reduction in grade to airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $100 for
one month; (10) O/a 3 and 4 Apr 78, applicant received  an  Article
15 for failure to go to his  prescribed  place  of  duty  on  time.
Punishment imposed was a reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1).

On 9 May 78, after consulting with counsel, applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the discharge notification, that he did  not  waive  his
right to a hearing before an  administrative  discharge  board  and
chose not to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 6 Jun 78, an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB)  convened  and
found applicant had been frequently involved with civil or military
authorities  in  matters  of  a  discreditable  nature.   The   ADB
recommended applicant be discharged because of  general  misconduct
with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and that he
not be offered rehabilitation opportunities.

The base and HQs USAFE legal offices  reviewed  the  administrative
discharge board proceedings and found them  legally  sufficient  to
support separation and recommended applicant receive an under other
than  honorable  conditions   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  On 17 Jul 78, the discharge authority approved the
separation and directed an under other  than  honorable  conditions
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 24 Jul  78,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic, under the provisions of AFM  39-12,  Chapter  2,  Section  B
(frequent involvement  of  a  discreditable  nature  with  military
authorities),  and  was  issued  an  under  other  than   honorable
conditions discharge (undesirable) discharge.  He was credited with
3 years, 11 months, and 9 days of active military service (excludes
117 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided  a  copy  of  an
investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states,  in
part, 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 evidence or identify any errors or
injustices   that   occurred   in   the    discharge    processing.
Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting  a  change
to his character of service.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 24 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received (Exhibit E).

On 20 Apr 06, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review/comment.  At the same time the  applicant  was
invited  to  provide  information   concerning   his   post-service
activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F).  On  23  May  06,
the applicant provided two letters of character reference  (Exhibit
G).

___________________________________________________________________

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  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing manual and we find no  evidence
to  indicate  that  his  separation  from   the   Air   Force   was
inappropriate or that it was based on any factors  other  than  his
own misconduct.  We find no evidence of  error  in  this  case  and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted  in  support
of applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has  suffered  from  an
injustice.  In addition, in view of the contents of the FBI  Report
of Investigation, we are not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of applicant’s discharge 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.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2006-
00424 in Executive Session on 8 June 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letters of Character Reference.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair