RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00277
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 AUGUST 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions and problems in the military were  due  to  his  youthful
indiscretions.

No supporting documentation was submitted.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force   (RegAF)   on
14 September 1970, as an airman basic  (AB)  for  a  period  of  four
years.

On 21 September 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he
was recommending him  for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  (AF)  for
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military and civil
authorities.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 21 October 1971, the applicant received an  Article  15
for being disorderly on station,  absent  without  authority  from  24
September through 28 September 1971 and absent without authority  from
15 October through 21 October 1971.

      b.    On or about 21 October 1971, the applicant was involved in
an incident of discreditable nature when his conduct of  physical  and
verbal abuse was directed against three other  servicemembers  of  the
AF.

      c.    On 20 June 1971, the  applicant  was  charged  with  grand
larceny and confined in a civilian jail in Mobile, AL.

      d.    On 3  May  1971,  the  applicant  after  being  placed  in
Correctional  Custody  and  his  personal   possessions   were   being
inventoried a wallet was found that belonged to another airman.

      e.    The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to report
for duty.

      f.    On 20  April  1971,  the  applicant  was  involved  in  an
argument in his barracks and threw  a  lock  through  the  window  and
screen and threatened another individual with a closet pole.

      g.    The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to repair
on 2, 5, and 7 April 1971.

      h.    On 2 April 1971, the applicant’s suspension  of  reduction
in grade was vacated for failure to repair.

      i.    The applicant received an  Article  15  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL) from 27 February through 4 March 1971.

      j.    The applicant  was  counseled  on  29  January  1971,  for
struggling  in  school,  lack  of  responsibility  and  poor  military
bearing.

      k.    The applicant received an Article 15 for failure to repair
on 28 and 29 January 1971.

      l.    On 27 January 1971, the applicant was counseled  for  poor
military bearing and attitude.

      m.    On 26  January  1971,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for
failure to report to school.

The  commander  advised  applicant  that  military  counsel  had  been
obtained  to  assist  him,  present  his  case  to  an  administrative
discharge board, be represented by legal counsel at a  board  hearing,
submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the
board hearing,  or  waive  the  above  rights  after  consulting  with
counsel.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and after consulting with legal counsel waived his  rights  associated
with an administrative  discharge  board  and  indicated  he  was  not
submitting statements in his own behalf.

A base legal review was conducted and they  determined  the  case  was
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the
applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable  conditions
(undesirable) discharge.

On 8 November 1971, the discharge authority approved  the  separation
and directed that the applicant be discharged  with  an  under  other
than honorable (undesirable) discharge.

On 8 November 1971, the applicant was separated from  the  Air  Force
under the provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12, Separation  for
Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge  for
the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program
(unfitness-frequent  involvement  in  incidents  of  a  discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities), with an under other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He served  1  year,  3
months and 23 days of active duty service.

On 2 May 1978, the applicant appealed  to  the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review  Board  (AFDRB)  to  have  his  under  other  than   honorable
conditions  (undesirable)  discharge  upgraded  to  honorable.   They
denied the  applicant’s  request  on  11  December  1978.  The  AFDRB
determined  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulations
and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They
further concluded the applicant’s discharge should not be upgraded.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is  attached
at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  have  his
UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable.   DPPRS  states  based  on  the
documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel record;  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.  He provided no facts warranting a change
in his character of service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS 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 2
March 2007, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.

A copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the applicant  on  13
March 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
this office has received no response (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or  unjust.   Furthermore,  the  discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence  or  identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred during the processing of his discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00277 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 07, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 07.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Mar 07.




                                        MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                        Panel Chair