RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03247
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
	APPLICANT  	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the time frame of his discharge his personal life was in upheaval.  He was willing to accept any means necessary to leave the military.  

He always thought he received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the contested time period, applicant served a total of five years in the United States Army.  He was honorably discharged on 4 August 1968 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August 1968 in the grade of airman first class for a period of four years.

On 17 January 1969, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for an undesirable discharge for unfitness.  The commander cited the following reasons for the discharge:

	a.  A letter dated 8 October 1968 was received on 17 October 1968 alleging the applicant was indebted to Mr. G.E.B. in the amount of $212.50  for  back  rent.  The  applicant  was  counseled  on 18 October 1968 regarding the alleged debt.  The applicant admitted owing the debt and agreed to contact Mr. G.E.B. to arrange a payment  plan.  The  applicant  was  again  counseled  
on 23 and 28 October 1968, where he explained that he was unable to contact Mr. G.E.B. and that Mr. G.E.B. did not return his calls.  On 29 October 1968 a reasonable payment plan was proposed until the debt was paid.  Mr. G.E.B. concurred with the payment plan on 11 November 1968.  In a letter dated 18 December 1968 from Mr. G.E.B. stating the applicant was in arrears of $35.00 on the repayment plan.

	b.  The applicant had an unpaid balance in the amount of $230.00 for an apartment he rented from Mr. S. at the rate of $35.00 a week from 24 August 1968 through 1 December 1968.

	c.  The applicant failed to pay the agreed amount $27.00 on a television he rented from Mr.XXXX. from 29 October 1968 through 5 December 1968.  An additional $1.50 was added for a broken antenna.  The total amount owed was $28.50.

	d.  On 21 September 1968, the applicant was indebted to the Chanute AFB Airman’s Club for dues and charges in the amount of $20.00.  He made payment on this debt on 27 December 1968.

	e.  The applicant failed to make the required monthly payments on a vehicle that was financed by the Bank of Illinois.  The applicant was counseled on 31 December 1968 concerning the car payments.  The applicant  stated  he would  be able  to make the 10 December payment.  As of January 1969 the bank had not received a payment from the applicant.  

	f.  The applicant was counseled on 2 January 1969 for returned checks for insufficient funds that were presented to Brownie’s IGA on 25 and 26 November 1968.

	g.  On 13 December 1968 the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for lying to his Technical School Instructor when he requested to be excused from class in order to report to sick call and then failed to report to sick call.

	h.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 3 January 1969 for failure to go at the time prescribed, to his appointed duty without proper authority.

The commander noted the applicant was arrested by civil authorities on 6 January 1969 for two counts of deceptive practices.  He remained in the custody of civil authorities  pending his trial on 17 January 1969.

The commander indicated in the recommendation for discharge action that the applicant's supervisor repeatedly counseled him with negative results.

The commander advised the applicant that military counsel had been obtained to assist him; or he could choose another counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; be 
represented by legal counsel; submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 20 January 1969, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board and to submit a statement.  It was further noted that if the applicant received an undesirable discharge it would be under conditions other than honorable and as a result of such a discharge the applicant may be deprived of veteran’s benefits; and may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life situations where the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of discharge received therefrom may have bearing.

On 17 February 1969, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 20 February 1969, in the grade of airman first class with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-12 (Unfitness).  He served a total of six months and six days of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Also, he did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states while he was stationed at Chanute his wife informed him that if he remained in the Air Force, she would file for a divorce.  He wanted to save his marriage so he talked with his commander and explained his situation.  His commander informed him that there was not much that he could do to solve his situation.  His commander also informed him that he was a relatively good airman and had nothing against him to warrant being discharged.  During this personal and emotional upheaval, he was willing to accept almost anything to save his marriage. So he made some bad judgments in order to facilitate grounds for a dismissal.  The applicant further states that his misconduct lasted a few weeks out of several years of service.   He has always been proud that he served in the armed forces.  

Since his being discharged from the Air Force he has lived a productive, honorable and patriotic life and have tried not to let his youthful mistakes aversely affect his life.  He is a member of his church and a 32nd Degree Mason and Shriner.  He has been married for 33 years, and has two children, and five grandchildren. 

He does not feel that he is asking for much-just an upgrade to general conditions.  He hopes that his youthful bad judgment will not cloud his veteran’s status and taint his otherwise honorable military service.  He regrets his mistakes.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

A copy of the FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant on 21 January 2003, for review and response.  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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and in view of the numerous instances of misconduct while the applicant was on active duty, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  Applicant presents no documented evidence of post-service activities and accomplishments.  However, should the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments and activities, this Board would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.  Otherwise, in view of the foregoing, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-03247  in  Executive  Session  on 7 January 2003  and 21 February 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Oct 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jan 03.