RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00898
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge does not allow him to make claim against his military service rendered; he had no time lost; he attended a hearing, and that he was granted his Veteran’s Administration (VA) benefits.

His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 March 1971.  He attained the grade of Airman (Amn/E-2) with a date of rank of   28 April 1971.

On 27 October 1971, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for unauthorized use of government-leased telephone lines.  On 19 November 1971, he received an Article 15 for failure to obey two lawful orders.  On 5 May 1972, he received an LOR for failure to appear for two dental appointments.  On 7 June 1972, he received an Article 15 for failure to go to appointed place of duty where he received a suspended reduction to AB.  On 9 August 1972, he received an LOR for speeding, and on 23 August 1972, he received an Article 15 for theft whereby the earlier suspended reduction in grade to AB was vacated.

The applicant’s commander notified him on 28 September 1972 that he was recommending the applicant meet an officer discharge review board for continuous misconduct and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  Applicant appeared before the Board on 29 September 1972.  The Board recommended an undesirable discharge with no Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R) that the discharge authority approved on   25 October 1972.  Applicant was subsequently discharged with an UOTHC discharge on 27 October 1972 after serving 1 year, 7 months and 27 days.  He was discharged as an AB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant provided no new evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the processing of his discharge.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that it was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  

DPPRS’s 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 18 April 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	Because the applicant has provided no documentation concerning post-service conduct, the Board finds nothing to warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.  However, should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 BC-2003-00898 in Executive Session on 5 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair