RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01673

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he entered the Air Force, it was for family problems; the authorities told him to join.  At the age of 18, he was arrogant and frustrated. Had he been older and more mature, he would not have behaved like this.  He has remained a good citizen in civilian life, married for 10 years and has one daughter.

Applicant’s complete application is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 22 May 1973.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provision of AFR 39-12 (unfitness) with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), with a RE code of 2B on 16 May 1974 in the grade of airman basic.  He served five months and nine days of total active military service.

The only available documentation indicates that on 13 February 1974, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-Martial for six counts of leaving his place of duty without authority, two counts of being disrespectful to superior NCOs, and six counts of failure to obey lawful orders.  These incidents occurred between November 1973 and January 1974.  He was sentenced to forfeit $217 per month for six months and confined to hard labor for four months.  He had 100 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  Based on the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of his discharge.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings.  The applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2, Ineligible to reenlist in the Regular Air Force” is correct.  The applicant’s request should be denied.  He received the proper RE upon discharge.  

AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 June 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 an error or injustice.  Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-01673 Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 9 May 03, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, undated.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 03.

	Panel Chair