RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00957
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he does not argue the fact that he deserved the type of discharge he received, he does contend that he was grossly immature at the time, an alcoholic (sober for the past 13 years), and that he has turned his life around.  He offers the fact that he has earned 2 Master’s degrees and a Bachelor’s degree.  He regrets that he was not a good and model member of the service and for not making it a career.  He is concerned that the discharge may preclude certain employment considerations. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of three college diplomas.  His appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 July 1971.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with an effective and date of rank of 7 June 1972.

On 7 December 1972, applicant received an Article 15 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 27 November 1972 to 3 December 1972.  He was reduced in grade to Airman (AMN/E-2), suspended unless sooner vacated, until 1 March 1973 and was fined $75 per month for two months.  He received another Article 15 on 10 April 1973 for failure to maintain suitable military appearance.  He was punished by being reduced in grade to Amn and fined $50 per month for two months.  It was also noted by his supervisor that he failed to report for duty on time on several occasions.

On 13 April 1973 he was notified that his commander was recommending him for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12, Apathy & Defective Attitude – Unsuitability.  On 10 May 1973, he received a general discharge with service characterization of under honorable conditions.  He had served a total of 1 year, 9 months and 9 days (7 days lost time), and was serving in the grade of Amn at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices during 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 sound 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.	Although the applicant has provided some documentation concerning post-service conduct in the form of college level graduation diplomas, the Board finds these submissions insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.  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-2003-00957 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 29 Mar 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair