RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02040
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 DEC 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he entered military service, he was  just  17  years  old  and
really not sure of himself.  He was really scared of going to  war;
a lot of his friends had gone to war and never came back.   At  the
time of his discharge, voices were telling him, if he went to  war,
he would not come back.  He was confused and had  never  been  away
from home.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2  January  1973  at
the rank of airman basic for a period of four years.

On  24  May  1973,  the  squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge  against  the  applicant  for  misconduct,
specifically, fraudulent enlistment under  AFM  39-12,  Chapter  2,
Section D, para 2-60.  The specific reason for the proposed  action
was concealment of prior service.  Applicant  had  been  discharged
from the US Army, with an under  other  than  honorable  conditions
(UOTHC) character of service.

On 31 May 1973, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification
and waived  his  rights  to  a  hearing  before  an  administrative
discharge board and submitted statements in  his  own  behalf.   He
further acknowledged he understood that  his  separation  could  be
under conditions other than honorable and that he may  be  deprived
of veterans’  benefits;  and  that  he  may  encounter  substantial
prejudice in civilian life in situations where the type of  service
rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of discharge
received may have a bearing.  On  6  June  1973,  the  staff  judge
advocate found the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to  support  a
discharge for misconduct.  He recommended an undesirable discharge.
 On 12 June 1973, the discharge authority, approved an  undesirable
discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a DD Form  258AF,
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 15 June 1973, applicant was discharged under the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section D,  paragraph  2-55,  and  issued  an
Undesirable   Discharge   Certificate,   with   a   UOTHC   service
characterization.  He was credited with 4 months and 6 days  active
duty service (excludes time lost 4 – 21 May 1973, 24 – 31 May 1973,
and 31 May – 14 June 1973).

On 4 August 1975, the Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicant’s request for  upgrade  of  his
undesirable discharge and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
2.  They concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient  to
warrant a change in the type or nature of the discharge (see  AFDRB
Hearing Record at Exhibit B).

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

On 21 September 2007, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for comment.   At  that  time,  the  applicant  was  also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the  service  (Exhibit  D).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

At  the  time   of   the   applicant’s   discharge,   the   service
characterization received was appropriate under the  provisions  of
the governing regulation  in  effect  at  the  time.   Attached  at
Exhibit  E,  is  an  excerpt  from  AFI   36-3208,   Administrative
Separation  of  Airmen,  which  shows  the  current  criteria   for
determining  the  characterization   of   service   under   similar
circumstances.  Additionally, notwithstanding the absence of  error
or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on  the
basis of clemency if so inclined.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  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, based on his  overall  record  of  service,  the
events which precipitated the discharge, and the  contents  of  the
FBI  report,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade   of   the
characterization of his discharge is warranted.  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  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2007-02040 in Executive Session on 25 October  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair