RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01506
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 NOV 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young while in the service.  He did not understand  why  he  was
being discharged with a UOTHC discharge.  He did not have  counsel  nor  was
he allowed to contact his parents during the contested time period.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 10 August  1971  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic.  He served as an Apprentice Recreational Specialist Helper.

On or about 5 March 1972, applicant failed to obey a general  regulation  by
operating a motor vehicle  without  public  liability  and  property  damage
insurance and was absent without leave (AWOL) from  16  to  18  March  1972.
For this misconduct he received nonjudicial punishment under Article  15  of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).   He  was  ordered  to  forfeit
$100.00 pay, 14 days extra duty, and was reduced in grade to  airman  basic.
The reduction to airman basic was suspended  until  12 October  1972  unless
sooner vacated.

Applicant having knowledge of a lawful order issued by a master sergeant  to
return to the orderly room by 1600 hours on or about 1 May 1972,  failed  to
do so.  For this misconduct, his suspended reduction  to  airman  basic  was
vacated.
Applicant having knowledge of a lawful order issued by  a  superior  officer
suspending him from using any of the facilities of the airmen open mess  for
an indefinite period, did on or about 5  June  1972,  failed  to  obey  said
order.  On or about 6  June  1972,  applicant  failed  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his place of duty.  For this misconduct  he  received  Article
15 punishment.  He was ordered to  forfeit  $124  pay  for  two  months  and
ordered to perform 30 days extra duty.

On 5 March 1972, applicant was apprehended by Lowry AFB Security Police  for
driving his car at 40 mph  in  a  25  mph  zone,  operating  a  POV  with  a
defective muffler causing excessive noise,  operating  POV  with  an  unsafe
tire (bald), and operating his POV  with  a  defective  headlight.   Further
investigation revealed a tear  gas  pistol  under  the  front  seat  of  the
automobile.

On 6 March 1972, applicant was taken to the USAF  Dispensary  for  emotional
disorders.  The medical report indicated alcohol was a  factor.   He  became
so unruly and uncontrollable the security police had to be called.

On 23 April 1972, applicant was involved in a fight with another  airman  at
the Airman’s Open Mess.

On 28  April  1972,  applicant  was  scheduled  to  report  for  a  personal
appearance inspection by the commander.  He did not report as instructed.

On 30 April 1972, applicant complained to the security police  that  he  had
been drugged.  Investigation revealed that he had  been  mixing  drinks  and
had been drinking excessively.

On 8 May 1972, applicant was involved in a fight at the Airman’s Open  Mess.
 For his misconduct and racial comments, he was suspended indefinitely  from
using the Airman’s Open Mess facilities.

On 12 September 1972, applicant was discharged with an UOTHC discharge.   He
served 1 year, 1 month, and 2 days on active duty.

On 12 March 1973, the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and denied the applicant’s request that  his  UOTHC  discharge  be  upgraded
(Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C.

On 8 August 2007, the applicant was provided the opportunity to  respond  to
the Investigative Report and to  provide  documentation  pertaining  to  his
post-service activities, within 30 days (Exhibit D), 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  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  find  no
evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice  that  occurred  in   the   discharge
processing.  Based on the available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the  discharge
regulation  and  within  the  commander’s  discretionary   authority.    The
applicant has provided no evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  the
characterization of the service  was  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulation, unduly harsh,  or  disproportionate  to  the  offenses
committed.   We  considered  upgrading  the  discharge  based  on  clemency;
however, no evidence has been presented which  would  persuade  us  granting
the relief sought on that basis is appropriate.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

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 issues  involved.   Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 11 October 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
                 Ms. B J White-Olson, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2007-01506 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 April 2007.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 August 2007.





                       WAYNE R. GRACIE
                       Panel Chair