RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00264
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served under honorable conditions for a long period of time and feels he earned a good discharge.

Supporting documents were not provided.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 6 Oct 70.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), with an effective date and date of rank of 18 Nov 70.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), pursuant to an Article 15.

On 30 May 72, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 May to 25 May 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and, for breach of correctional custody on 19 May 72, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  The applicant’s prior disciplinary record follows:

	-  On 20 Apr 71, applicant received notification of his commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 16-17 Apr 71, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  The commander determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $30.00.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	-  On 14 Jun 71, applicant received notification of his commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure to report to his place of duty, on 7 Jun 71, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  The commander determined that applicant was guilty of the offense and imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $30.00 and restriction to base from 15-28 Jun 71.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	-  On 1 Sep 71, applicant received notification of his commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 16-17 Apr 71, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  The commander determined that applicant was guilty of the offense and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $30.00.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	-  One Special Court-Martial conviction on 8 Dec 71 for being AWOL from 7 Sep to 15 Nov 71, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for four months.

	-  On 5 May 72, applicant received notification of his commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for being AWOL from 24 Apr - 1 May 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  The commander determined that applicant was guilty of the offense and imposed punishment consisting of a forfeiture of $35.00 per month for two months and 30 days of correctional custody.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  On 5 Jun 72, the applicant’s unexecuted portion of the correctional custody was remitted.

On 26 May 72, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service.  On 28 Jun 72, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended acceptance of the request for discharge.  On 3 Jul 72, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and ordered an undesirable discharge.  The applicant received an undesirable discharge on 11 Jul 72 under the provisions of AFM 39-12.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 2 months and 21 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  The applicant had a total of 195 days of lost time.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  Based on the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DDPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 21 Feb 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge in 1972 and found no evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s discharge request for the good of the service, that pertinent Air Force regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, that the information contained in the discharge case file was erroneous, or that his superiors abused their discretionary authority, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request for upgrade of his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

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 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00264.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair