RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03208
							INDEX CODE:  110.00
    							COUNSEL:  None

    							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had no legal representation to contest the type of discharge he would receive.  He served his country faithfully.  

Applicant submits no supporting documentation.  Applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 July 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years (extended to 3 January 1982 for PCS retainability).  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 1967.  He received two Airman Performance Reports (APR) closing 1 September 1978 and 1 September 1979 respectively, in which his overall evaluations were 8 (9 being the highest rating).

On 13 September 1978, he was charged with being absent without authority.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed.  He received a suspended reduction to airman and $78 forfeiture of his pay.  On 25 October 1978, the suspended action was vacated for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and he was reduced to the grade of airman.

On 30 January 1980, he was charged with being drunk and disorderly.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, was imposed.  He received a suspended reduction to airman and $75 forfeiture of his pay.  On 6 March 1980, the suspended action was vacated for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order.  As a result, he was reduced to the grade of airman. 
On 22 March 1980, he received a USAFE Form 330, Record of Counseling, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 22 April 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15(a), for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights in the matter; however, in a statement signed by his squadron section commander and witnessed by his first sergeant, it was indicated the applicant had refused to sign his letter of notification and to meet with military legal counsel.  On 12 and 13 May 1980, an evaluation of the case file was conducted.  Following his review of the record and an interview with the applicant, the evaluation officer recommended a general discharge and stated that the applicant was a suitable candidate for rehabilitation.  In a statement dated 13 May 1980, the applicant certified he had been interviewed by the evaluation officer and acknowledged he had been advised of his rights.  In a short statement in his own defense, he attributed his actions to a problem with alcohol.  He indicated he had voluntarily entered a rehabilitation program.  He requested retention in the Air Force.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge as recommended by the evaluation officer.  However, the staff judge advocate recommended probation and rehabilitation be disapproved.  On 20 May 1980, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The discharge authority indicated he considered probation and rehabilitation inappropriate.  The applicant was discharged on 2 June 1980 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 2 years, 10 months and 29 days on active duty. 

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that since the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation to upgrade his discharge, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 November 2002, for review and response.  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

___________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  We have noted the applicant’s assertion that he did not receive legal counsel in order to dispute the type of discharge he would receive.  In this regard, the discharge case file shows that he was offered legal counsel but chose not to afford himself of this venue.  Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant showing that the information in the discharge case file is erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  

___________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 19 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number 02-03280:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 September 2002.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 October 2002.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 November 2002.