RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  03-00323
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should have been general (under honorable conditions).

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of DD Form 293, Applicant for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 May 66 for a period of 4 years and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 Jun 67. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 28 Dec 67 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities) and received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served 1 year, 7 months and 3 days total active service.  

On 18 Dec 67, the applicant was ordered to be discharged with an undesirable discharge certificate.  The notification letter from his commander is missing from his records, however, there is a statement from his commander (undated) that outlines the reason for the discharge and all incidents are documented in his records.  The summary includes 19 failures to repair incidents, 3 tardiness incidents; and failure to pass his skills test on two occasions.  He was convicted by civil authorities for wrongfully appropriating private vehicle and failure to pay indebtedness in connection with the conviction.  He received nonjudicial Article 15 punishment on two separate occasions for failure to repair.  He was disruptive in the on-the-job training program and his commander stated he was a disciplinary problem in his section and squadron.  The applicant consulted with counsel and requested to appear before a discharge board but later recanted (1 Dec 67) and waived his right to appear and did not submit statements.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and ordered an UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge authority.  Applicant contends his discharge was supposed to have been a general discharge; however, upon review of his records, we can find no documentation recommending anything other than an undesirable discharge.  

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.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  He has not filed timely request.

AFPC/DPPRS complete 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 21 Feb 03, for review and comment.  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, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  His contentions are duly noted; however, evidence has not been presented to show that his discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the directive under which it was affected.  Furthermore, the reasons for the discharge proceedings are well documented in the available record.  The characterization of his service was based on the circumstances which existed at the time and resulted from his own misconduct.  Hence, the applicant has provided no new evidence which would lead us to believe that the cited reasons for his discharge proceedings were erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-00323 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.

	
	Panel Chair