RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00462
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 AUG 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2. His name be corrected on his DD  Form  214,  Report  of  Separation  from
Active Duty, to reflect Rick Lee Ralph rather than Rich Lee Ralph.

Examiner’s Note:  The applicant’s name has been administratively  corrected.
 Therefore, the only issue before the Board is the  applicant’s  request  to
upgrade his discharge to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge upgraded.  He states that he was informed that  six
months subsequent to his discharge he could apply  for  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  He further states he has no criminal record.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a  copy  of  his  DD  Form
214, Report of Separation from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 June 1976 in the  grade  of
airman basic.  He was promoted to the grade of airman first class  effective
and with a date of rank of 2 June 1977.  On  27  June  1978,  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, section  A,  paragraph
2-4c.  The specific reasons for this action were as follows:

On 31 January 1978, applicant received a  Record  of  Counseling  (ROC)  for
failure to clean dormitory room and having an  unauthorized  female  in  his
dorm room.

On 10 February 1978, applicant received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)  for
failure to maintain cleanliness standards for his dormitory room.

On 3 March 1978, applicant received an ROC for failure to maintain  grooming
standards.

On 22 April 1978, applicant received a ROC for failure to repair.

On 25 April 1978, applicant received a ROC for failure to repair.

On 13 June 1978, applicant received an Article 15 for being  absent  without
leave (AWOL).

He was advised  of  his  rights  in  regard  to  the  discharge  matter  and
acknowledged receipt of the notification.   After  consulting  with  counsel
the applicant elected to submit statements on his own  behalf.   On  12 June
1978, an evaluation officer conducted a personal  interview  with  applicant
and recommended that he  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.   In  a  legal
review of the case file, the staff judge advocate  found  the  case  legally
sufficient and recommended that he be discharged.   On  21  July  1978,  the
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that  he
be  discharged   with   a   general   discharge,   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on  26 July  1978.   He  served  2
years, 1 month and 25 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that they were unable to identify  with
an arrest record on the basis of information furnished (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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 April 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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.   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.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.  Notwithstanding the above, we note the applicant  did  not  provide
any information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.   If
he were to submit any post-service documentation, we would  be  inclined  to
reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-
00462 in Executive Session on 22 May 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative Federal Bureau of Investigation Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Apr 07.




                 LAURENCE M. GRONER
                 Panel Chair