RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02617
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 MAR 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was harsh and he believes it should be upgraded.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 September 1962.

On 3 March 1964, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent
to impose punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for alleged  violation  of
Article 86 of the UCMJ.  Specifically, he  did,  on  or  about  29  February
1964, without proper authority fail to go at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty, to wit: Alert City Dining Hall.  He was advised  of
his rights in this matter  and  acknowledged  receipt  on  that  same  date.
After consulting with counsel, he elected not  to  demand  trial  by  court-
martial and did  not  submit  a  presentation  on  his  own  behalf  to  his
commander.  After considering  all  the  matters  presented,  his  commander
determined that  he  did  commit  the  alleged  violation.   The  punishment
imposed consisted of a reduction  in  grade  from  airman  second  class  to
airman third class.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.



On 21 April 1964, the applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent
to impose punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for alleged  violation  of
Article 86 of the UCMJ.  Specifically, he did, on or about  18  April  1964,
without proper authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his  appointed
place of duty, to wit:  Dining Hall #3.  He was advised  of  his  rights  in
this matter and acknowledged receipt on that same  date.   After  consulting
with counsel, he elected not to demand trial by court-martial  and  did  not
submit  a  presentation  on  his  own  behalf  to  his   commander.    After
considering all the matters presented, his commander determined that he  did
commit  the  alleged  violation.   The  punishment  imposed   consisted   of
correctional custody for seven consecutive days, a reduction in  grade  from
airman third class to airman basic, and a forfeiture of $19.00 pay  for  one
month.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 13 May 1964, the applicant was notified by his commander  of  his  intent
to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-16, Section B.  The specific reasons  for  this  action  were  his
character and behavior disorders.  He was advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  that  same  date.
After  consulting  with  counsel  the  applicant  elected  not   to   submit
statements on his own behalf.

On 21 May 1964, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged  with
a general discharge.  Applicant was discharged on 22 May  1964.   He  served
1 year, 8 months, and 4 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS 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.   Applicant
did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________







APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 September 2006, the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  D).   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the evidence of  record
we are not persuaded that the  applicant’s  discharge  should  be  upgraded.
The applicant’s contentions are duly  noted;  however,  we  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of  the  office  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his authority or that the reason for  the
discharge  was  inaccurate  or  inappropriate.   Absent  evidence   to   the
contrary, we presume responsible officials applied appropriate standards  in
effecting the separation, and  we  do  not  find  persuasive  evidence  that
pertinent regulations were violated or 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-
02617 in Executive Session on 2 November 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 15 Sep 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.





                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair