RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02272
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Block 13A, Character of Service, be changed to something better than “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.” 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he returned from a one-year tour in Vietnam, he was put into a unit that he believed was being assigned back to Vietnam.  He went Absent Without Leave (AWOL) in excess of 30 days.  His first sergeant talked to him regularly and he insisted he return to duty but he did not.  He was eventually returned to his base and court-martialed.  He was given a choice to either serve his remaining 3 ½ months or accept an “UOTHC” discharge, which would change automatically to “honorable” within 12 months.  

The applicant provided no supporting documents.  The applicant’s application is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 27 May 1966 for a period of 4 years.  During his service, he was credited with 11 months and 26 days of foreign and/or sea service and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of A1C (E-3).  He received 4 enlisted Performance Reports, in which he was rated “Highest 20%,” “Highest 30%”, 6 (1-9, 9 being the highest rating) and 9.

On 13 January 1970, applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being Absent Without Leave from on or about 11 August 1969 until on or about 25 November 1969 and sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit 2/3 pay per month for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for 6 months.  The sentence was affirmed and ordered into execution on 26 January 1970.  Records indicate his discharge was executed on 15 May 1970. He was credited with 3 years, 5 months and 3 days of total active service.  Time lost was 199 days due to AWOL and confinement.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

On 1 May 1972, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a negative finding pertaining to the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any error or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that after his year of service in Bein Hoa, Vietnam as an aircraft technician, he was thankful to be alive as they were under attack the whole time.  While in Vietnam, his first child was born and he did not know of his daughter’s birth until a month later.  Upon returning home on 30 days of leave, he found his wife and four-month old baby basically homeless and in need of his fatherly duties.  At the time of his leave, he was assigned to Wright Patterson Base, OH where an order was being prepared for him to return to Vietnam.  He had no intention of returning to Vietnam.  When he did not return after the end of his leave, he remained in weekly contact with his sergeant.  He requested from his sergeant to change his orders to a unit that would not deploy to Vietnam since he had only 10 months left to serve and had no desire to reenlist.  He became AWOL and was extradited to Chanute AFB IL to await his trial.  In hindsight, the applicant now feels that his legal counsel was weak, even though in his defense the fact that his wife and child were homeless was used, his counsel neglected to mention important factors such as his time left to serve and being ordered to return to Vietnam despite the mandatory six-month retainability law.  Most importantly, his psychological state upon returning from Vietnam was not mentioned by his attorney during his trial.  He was not offered any psychological/medical evaluations or treatment in dealing with his mental exhaustion.  He now believes these reasons could have played an important part in his decision making process during his court-martial.  

Although he has let many years go by with no rebuttal to his court-martial, his bad judgment in not handling this sooner has left him medically uninsured as his health will no longer permit him to work and his health condition has made any personal insurance policy unaffordable.  He believes it shall be proven that his health condition is contributed to his exposure to Agent Orange during his time in Vietnam.  Additionally, he is interested in scheduling a hearing in the near future.  

The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

On 21 August 2002, a letter was forwarded to the applicant suggesting that he consider providing evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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 applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.  In view of the seriousness of the offense of which the applicant stood convicted and the fact that it has been 32 years since his separation, we do not find the limited evidence provided is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief based on clemency.  In our opinion, the evidence submitted is not of a sufficient quality and quantity to warrant the approval of the requested relief at this time.  Should the applicant provide more expansive evidence of his post-service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his petition.  In the absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02272 in Executive Session on 18 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Aug 02.