RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00341
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 JULY 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  told  his  discharge  would  automatically  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD  Forms
214, a DD Form 215 and a letter  from  the  Wabasha  County  Veterans
Service Office.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  14 August
1969 in the grade of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 29 May 1973, the applicant’s commander notified  him  that  he  was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force  for  apathetic  and
defective attitude.  The specific reasons  for  the  discharge  action
were:

       a.      The  applicant’s  performance  report  for  the  period
8 December 1972 through 15 May 1973 rated the applicant an  overall  3
on a 0 to 9 scale and the comments  by  the  reporting  and  indorsing
officials clearly depicted the reasons for the inferior rating.

      b.     On 4 May 1973, the applicant  was  arrested  for  driving
while intoxicated and subsequently convicted.

      c.     On 4 May 1973, the applicant was found  in  violation  of
Military Airlift Command (MAC) Supplement  to  the  Air  Force  Manual
(AFM) 60-16, that he was consuming alcoholic beverages within 10 hours
of his 0845 alert time.

      d.     On 10 May and 17 October  1972,  the  applicant  received
Letters of Reprimand for issuing checks with insufficient  funds  from
his checking account.

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.

On 31 May 1973, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification
of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel waived his rights
to a hearing before  an  administrative  discharge  board  and  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 12 June 1973, the legal office reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
leally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant
be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation

On 14 June 1973, the discharge authority approved the  discharge  and
directed  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 25 June 1973  under
the  provisions  of  AFM   39-12,   Separation   for   Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the
Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability,
apathy,  defective  attitude   and   inability   to   expend   effort
constructively,  with  an  under   honorable   conditions   (general)
discharge.  He served on active duty for 3 years,  10 months  and  12
days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).


___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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.  He provided  no
facts warranting a change in his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete 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
16 March 2007, for review and response.  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 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.  The applicant has not submitted evidence to show
the processing of his discharge was in error or unjust.  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-
2007-00341 in Executive Session on 14 June 2007 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                       Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Mar 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Mar 07.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair