RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02089

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The record is not in error.  He is begging for a record review of his discharge and an upgrade in status from a general to an honorable.  He has learned from his errors and cannot change his past.  He wants his children and grandchildren to be proud he served his country.  

In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 293, Applicant for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States and a copy of DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic for a period of 4 years on 4 April 1975.  He was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12, (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities) on 23 June 1978 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 3 years, 2 months and 20 days of total active duty service.  

On 19 May 1978, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge because of his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  Basis for action: arrested by Aurora CO police on 13 October 1977 and charged with speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol; counseled on 21 October, 9, 18 and 25 November 1977 for issuing checks with insufficient funds; 18 November 1977, missed medical appointment; and 18 January 1978, arrested by Aurora CO police and charged with possession of marijuana and unlawful harboring of a juvenile runaway.  He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and harboring a juvenile runaway on 28 February 1978, was fined $50 and sentence was deferred for 90 days.  On  16 February 1978, he was apprehended on base for speeding.  His commander recommended an honorable discharge.  Applicant consulted with legal counsel and on 24 May 1978, he waived his right to present matters to an administrative discharge board and declined to submit statements.  The base legal services reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The staff judge advocate recommended an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because of the frequency of member’s offenses and his negative response to counseling.  The Discharge Authority reviewed the case, and because of the frequency and repetitive nature of member’s involvement in a 4-month period, ordered a general discharge.  He did not approve P&R on account of the member’s failure to respond to frequent efforts for rehabilitation. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and states based upon the documentation in the file the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  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 a timely request.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he was proud to be an American to have served his country overseas.  He supports the troops and the American Flag and would gladly take up arms to protect her.  He would like his children and grandchildren to know this and be influenced by it.  

He is not asking for any extra benefits from the Air Force, only a piece of paper with an honorable discharge to hang proudly so his children and grandchildren can see that he did his part overseas.   

He begs the Board to help him correct this difficult (short) time period in his life so that he may move on – proudly.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  The records reflect that the commander initiated administrative actions based on information he determined to be reliable and that administrative actions were properly accomplished.  The applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he initiated the discharge action.  The only other basis upon which to recommend an upgrade of his discharge would be clemency.  However, applicant has failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post service conduct.   Therefore, in the absence of this documentation, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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-2003-02089 in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 12 Aug 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated undated