RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01028
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  None
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for a medical hardship due to a family emergency; he  should  not
have received an undesirable discharge.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 May 72, for  a  period  of
four years in the grade  of  airman  basic.   His  highest  grade  held  was
airman.

Documents in the applicant’s military personnel records  (MPR)  reflect  the
following punishments:

1) Article 15 on 27 Nov 72, for failure to report for duty on   20  Nov  72;
punishment imposed was forfeiture of $30.00 pay and 14 days extra  duty;  2)
Article 15 on 12 Mar 73, for failure to report for duty on  22  and  23  Feb
73; punishment imposed was reduction in grade to  airman  basic,  forfeiture
of $50.00 pay, and 14 days extra duty; (3) Special Court-Martial on  18  May
73, for being absent without authority (AWOL) from 29 Mar -  3  Apr  73  and
failure to repair; punishment consisted of confinement to hard labor for  15
days, and forfeiture of $178.00 pay; and (4) Special Court-Martial on 8  Aug
73, for disrespectful language toward a  superior  noncommissioned  officer,
and being AWOL from 5-10 Jul 73;  punishment  consisted  of  confinement  to
hard labor for three months, immediate entry into  the  Retraining  Program,
and forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for three months.

On 18 Oct 73, applicant met a  Classification  Board  (Final)  to  determine
whether to return the  applicant  to  duty  or  process  for  administrative
discharge.  Applicant stated before the Board that  it  was  his  desire  to
return to duty.   After  considering  all  factors,  the  Board  unanimously
recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  for  frequent  involvement  IAW
paragraph 2-15a, Section B of AFM 39-12.

On  23  Oct  73,  applicant’s  commander  concurred   with   the   unanimous
recommendation of the Board.   He  stated  that  applicant’s  poor  civilian
record, prior  military  performance,  and  performance  in  the  retraining
program makes an Undesirable Discharge appropriate.  Applicant was  notified
of his commander’s recommendation for discharge for unfitness,  and  of  the
specific reasons for the proposed discharge.

On 7  Nov  73,  applicant  requested  a  hardship  discharge  by  reason  of
dependency  hardship.   On  13  Nov  73,  the  Retraining  Group   Commander
disapproved his request.  The commander stated  although  it  appeared  that
his wife’s condition may warrant his release from the Air Force,  the  facts
observed and noted unanimously by Retraining Group  personnel  leave  little
room for deviation from his original decision.  He further  stated  that  on
18 Oct 73, applicant met a Classification Board (Final  Board)  and  pleaded
for an opportunity to remain  in  the  Air  Force,  with  no  mention  of  a
hardship discharge.

On 5 Dec 73, after consulting with  legal  counsel,  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the discharge notification and waived  his  right  to  a  hearing
before an administrative discharge board and did not  submit  statements  in
his own behalf.

Applicant was discharged on 10 Jan 74, in the grade of airman  basic,  under
the provisions of AFM 39-12,  Chapter  2,  Section  B  (Unfitness  -frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or  military  authorities),
and  was  issued  an  under  other  than  honorable   conditions   discharge
(undesirable) discharge.  He was credited with 1  year,  4  months,  and  11
days of active military service (excludes 107 days of lost time due to  AWOL
and confinement).

On 17 Jun 82, applicant applied to the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable  conditions  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.  After review of the evidence of  record,  the  AFDRB
concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority and that the applicant’s  discharge  should  not  be
changed.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit B.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided  a  copy  of  an  investigation  report,
which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the  characterization  of  his  discharge
was contrary to the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation  for  Unsuitability,
Unfitness or Misconduct; Resignation or Request for Discharge for  the  Good
of the Service; and Procedures  for  the  Rehabilitation  Program.  (Extract
copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit D).  Nor  has  he  shown  the
nature of  the  discharge  was  unduly  harsh  or  disproportionate  to  the
offenses committed.   At the time of the applicant’s discharge,  AFM  39-12,
paragraph  2-15a,  Section  B.,  stated  that  when  discharged  because  of
unfitness an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge  certificate  will
be furnished.  Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the  Board
has the prerogative  to  grant  relief  on  the  basis  of  clemency  if  so
inclined.

On 30 Apr 07, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to  the  applicant  for
review/comment.  At the same time  the  applicant  was  invited  to  provide
additional information concerning his post-service activities since  leaving
the service (Exhibit E).

The applicant responded with a  personal  letter  summarizing  his  military
service and accomplishments since his discharge, a resume, and a  Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision letter.

He states he was excited and committed to his military career and strove  to
meet the highest standards of  performance.   His  misconduct  was  directly
related to  his  family’s  medical  hardship.   He  applied  for  a  Medical
Hardship Discharge and was denied.  Since his discharge,  he  has  had  many
educational and professional accomplishments and  is  currently  pursuing  a
degree in Information Technology & Network Security.  He has over ten  years
of professional experience in “leading edge” technology,  network  security,
engineering, and educational principles.

Applicant’s complete response is at 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  error  or  injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, we  find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of
applicant’s  discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting  the  separation,  and  we  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.  We conclude, therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings  were
proper  and  characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing circumstances.  Although the applicant states he has been a  valued
member of  his  community  and  society,  and  has  provided  some  evidence
pertaining to his post service activities, in view of the  contents  of  the
FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded  that  the  characterization
of the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to general on the basis  of
clemency.  In view of the above  we  find  no  basis  to  warrant  favorable
action on this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
01028 in Executive Session on 5 June 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01028 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Extract, AFM 39-12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Apr 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 May 07, w/atchs.




                                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Chair