RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03830
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 JUN 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His performance on the job was always above and beyond. He believes  he  was
harassed by his command.  He states he was immature at the time and  desires
his discharge upgraded.

In support of his request, the applicant  provided  documentation  extracted
from his military personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 January 1971 in the  grade
of airman basic and served as a Medical Service Specialist.

On 16 March 1973, applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent  to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2-15a.  The specific reasons  for
this action were as follows:

On 20 May 1971, applicant was convicted by special court-martial because  he
did, on or about 18 April 1971, unlawfully strike an  individual  about  the
face with his hand, unlawfully strike another individual on the  right  side
of the face with his fist, and unlawfully strike another individual  on  the
left side of the face with his fist.

On  17  February  1972,  applicant  received  an  Article   15   for   being
disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer and on  or  about
17 January 1972, without authority, absent  himself  from  his  organization
and did remain absent until on or about 20 January 1972.

On 12 April 1972, applicant received a vacation of suspended sentence of  an
Article 15 because he did, on or about 10  March  1972,  without  authority,
absent himself from his organization and  did  remain  absent  until  on  or
about 6 April 1972.

On 26 April 1972, applicant was given an Article 15 because he  did,  on  or
about  10  March  1972,  without  authority,   absent   himself   from   his
organization and did remain so absent until on or about 6 April 1972.

On 25 August 1972, applicant received an Article 15 because he  did,  on  or
about 12 August 1972, without authority, leave his appointed place of  duty.
 He did, on or about 14 August 1972, without authority, fail to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and on  or  about  17  August
1972, without authority, fail to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 18  October  1972,  applicant  was  convicted  by  special  court-martial
because he did, on or  about  31  August  1972,  without  authority,  absent
himself from his organization and did remain absent until  on  or  about  28
September 1972.

On 10 December 1972, applicant failed to comply with instruction, for  which
he was cited on DD Form 1569, Incident/Complaint Report.

On 12 December 1972, he  was  given  an  administrative  reprimand  for  the
incident of 10 March 1972.

On 17 December 1972, applicant  received  an  Administrative  Reprimand  for
assaulting another airman.

On 8 January 1973, applicant received a  DD  Form  1569,  Incident/Complaint
Report, for failure to repair for roll call and/or bed check.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification on that same date.  After  consulting  with  counsel  applicant
submitted a  request  for  discharge  for  the  good  of  the  service.   He
understood if his request for discharge  was  approved  he  may  receive  an
undesirable discharge.  In a legal review of the case file, the staff  judge
advocate found the case  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  that  he  be
discharged for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.  On  7
April 1973, the discharge authority concurred with the  recommendations  and
directed that he be discharged with  an  undesirable  discharge.   Applicant
was discharged on 18 April 1973.  He served 1 year, 10 months  and  15  days
on active duty.

On 10 October 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  considered
and denied  the  applicant’s  request  that  his  undesirable  discharge  be
upgraded to an  honorable  discharge.   They  concluded  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulations and was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  The Board could find no mitigating  reasons  or  other  evidence
upon which to base an upgrade of discharge (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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  a
change to his undesirable discharge.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states during the  contested  time
period he was an immature, disheartened, and an angry airman.  Before  basic
training, he was informed by his recruiter  that  he  could  attend  Officer
Training School (OTS).  During basic training he states he was harassed  and
taunted about attending OTS.  He was informed that it  would  never  happen.
He became frustrated, angry and rebellious due to his immaturity as to  what
was expected of him as a  member  of  the  Air  Force.   He  states  he  has
brothers that served in the service and is  proud  of  his  family  military
background.  He is ashamed of the type of discharge he received.   With  age
comes wisdom.  He  states  he  has  maintained  a  work  history,  has  five
children, and his wife died in 1998.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

On 6 February 2007, a copy of the FBI Report of Investigation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 14 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.   We  believe  responsible  officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting his separation, and do  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.   It  appears  the  discharge   proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate   to   the   existing
circumstances.   Although  the  applicant  did  not   specifically   request
consideration based on clemency, we find insufficient evidence to warrant  a
recommendation that the characterization of  the  applicant’s  discharge  be
upgraded on that basis.  In this respect, we note the  applicant’s  apparent
misconduct  following  his  discharge,  as  indicated  on  the  FBI  report.
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 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-
03830 in Executive Session on 28 February 2007, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jan 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jan 07.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jan 07.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 6 Feb 07.




                 JAY H. JORDAN
                 Panel Chair