RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03691
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  character  of  service  be  upgraded  from  general  (under  honorable
conditions) to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His recruiter changed his enlistment papers and had him  sign  new  papers.
These papers omitted item number 18 on the “statement of personal  history”
section.  This was proven to his Air Force  lawyer.   He  was  offered  the
opportunity to reenlist and  he  declined.   However,  an  under  honorable
conditions  discharge  was  placed  on  his  DD  Form   214   without   his
understanding.   He  was  honest;  however,  his  recruiter  falsified  the
paperwork.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 398,
Statement of  Personal  History;  an  excerpt  on  Enlisted  Administrative
Separations and a copy of his DD Form  214,  Armed  Forces  of  the  United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 January 1972.

On 15 December  1972,  he  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions  of  AFR
39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct,  Resignation,  or  Request
for  Discharge  for  the  Good  of  the  Service  and  Procedures  for  the
Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, section A, paragraph 2-4b for  apathetic
and defective  attitude,  behavior,  and  personal  abuse  of  drugs.   The
specific reasons for this action were on or about 29 November 1972  he  was
charged with possession  of  .01  grams,  more  or  less  of  marijuana  in
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was  diagnosed
with an immature personality and  a  poor  prognosis  if  retained  in  the
military.

On 15 December 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification.

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and
recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 22 December 1972, he was discharged in the grade of airman. He served  a
total of one year and sixteen days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  WV,  provided  an  investigation  report  (Exhibit  C).    The
applicant provided a response to  the  information  contained  in  the  FBI
Report, which is at Exhibit F.

On 24 January 2008, a  request  for  information  pertaining  to  his  post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant  for  response  within  30
days  (Exhibit  D).   In  response  to  our  request,   applicant   provided
documentation, which is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the applicant  seems  to  imply
that the basis for his discharge was fraudulent enlistment and  states  the
Air Force tried to court-martial him for lying to gain entry into  the  Air
Force.  If his statements are  accurate,  the  commander  may  have  indeed
contemplated court-martial  action  but  in  light  of  evidence  presented
decided to withdraw the action.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  in  his
record to confirm or deny this action.  What is clear from  the  record  is
the basis for discharge was not for fraudulent enlistment as  he  contends;
rather, he was discharged for an immature  personality  and  possession  of
marijuana.  He states he was not informed of the type  of  discharge  until
the day he was released from the Air Force.  The  record  simply  does  not
support this statement; he was notified of the discharge action and advised
of the recommended general discharge.  Lastly, based on  the  documentation
on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The complete DPSOS advisory is attached at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating some of the records appear to be wrong.   He
stands by  the  fact  that  he  was  denied  flight  line  duty  because  of
supposedly false paperwork.  The advisory does not mention that he  received
a court-martial for automotive problems that caused him to  return  to  base
two to three days late.  He does not remember being arrested for drugs.   He
spent six to seven months buffing floors  and  wonders  why  it  took  until
November to come up with a 01 gram marijuana problem and then discharge  him
25 days later.  He has been a hard working husband and father of  two  step-
sons.  He has run a successful locksmith service for over 30 years  and  has
been an asset to his community.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

________________________________________________________________

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.  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  he  was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of  discharge.   He  has  not
shown the characterization of the discharge was contrary to  the  provisions
of the governing regulation, nor has it been shown that the  nature  of  the
discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to  the  offenses  committed.
Considered alone, we conclude the  discharge  proceedings  were  proper  and
characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate   to   the   existing
circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of  clemency.   We  have  considered  the
applicant's overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge and available evidence related to his post-service activities  and
accomplishments.  We do not believe  that  clemency  is  warranted  at  this
time.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMEDS:

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-
03691 in Executive Session on 28 May 2008, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr.  James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Ms.  Karen A. Holloman, Member
            Mr.  Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
03691 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 October 2007, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2008, w/atch.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 February 2008.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 March 2008.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 April 2008.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 April 2008.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 April 2008, w/atchs.





                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair