RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03692
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His discharge be upgraded to honorable or general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His service in Vietnam should outweigh his absence of 33 days without leave.

In support of his application, the applicant provided his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 September 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective 1 April 1970.  The applicant received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) during his term of service.  He received an overall rating of 5 for the period 4 September 1969 through 15 November 1970 and an overall rating of 6 for the period 16 November 1970 through 26 May 1971.  

On 9 November 1970, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to report to duty on time.  As punishment, he received a suspended reduction to the rank of airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $25 for one month.

The applicant served in Thailand from 28 January 1970 to 28 January 1971.  He became subject to courts-martial charges when he failed to return from leave upon his assignment to the United States from Thailand.  He was absent without leave 25 March 1971 to 26 April 1971.  On 29 March 1971, his duty status was changed from present for duty to AWOL, effective 25 March 1971.  On 23 April 1971, his duty status was changed from AWOL to desertion.  The applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military authorities on 27 April 1971.  He was returned to duty on 27 April 1971.  The applicant claimed when he went home on leave he found his family in immediate need of financial help.  He decided to remain at home in an attempt to help and would go back to the military later.

The applicant was interview by a physician on 11 May 1971.  The physician noted the applicant was hospitalized on 22 September 1970 for depressive reaction with suicidal gesture.  The physician stated the applicant’s prognosis was guarded at the time since the patient was suffering “basically from a character disorder” and he might turn to acting out behavior again.  When the subject of his AWOL status was discussed, the applicant felt little responsibility for it and indicated he would do it again in order to leave the service.  The attending physician classified the applicant with a character or behavior disorder.

On 24 May 1971, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He furnished a statement that he had been advised of his legal rights and privileges and understood the consequences of this type of discharge.  Attached to the applicant’s request was a statement by his military legal counsel.  This officer stated that he had interviewed the applicant and determined he gave up easily when faced with difficult situations.  The legal council also stated the applicant was not a good candidate for probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was told that if convicted as charged by the special court-martial, the maximum authorized punishment extends to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1).  

On 25 May 1971, the applicant’s first sergeant signed a statement noting that since his return from AWOL, the applicant performed all duties in a satisfactory manner and his appearance and quarter’s care were well above the standards required by the Air Force.  The first sergeant stated the applicant’s conduct on duty as well as off duty had been very satisfactory.

On 27 May 1971, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with an undesirable discharge, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.  On 28 May 1971, the staff judge advocate found the action legally sufficient.  On 15 June 1971, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for separation under the provisions of AFM 39-12 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate.  The applicant was discharged effective 25 June 1971 1996 with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 22 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 December 2002 for review and response (Exhibit D).  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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 5 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 02‑03692 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 02, with attachment.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Dec 02.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.