RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02142
		INDEX CODE:  112.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank be reinstated to the grade of airman third class (A3C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was an inadequate follow-up prior to his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 August 1965 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.  He was promoted to A3C on 15 September 1965.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) brief indicates that the applicant was reduced in grade to airman basic on 11 May 1967 as a result of an Article 15.  He was again promoted to A3C on 1 February 1967.  Subsequently, he was reduced in grade to airman basic on 26 June 1967 as a result of an Article 15.  The applicant received another Article 15 on 7 November 1967 for failure to go on 26 and 28 October 1967.  He received 30 days correctional custody.

On 16 January 1968, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for unfitness.  The commander recommended an undesirable discharge.  The specific reasons follow:  

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was arrested and convicted of driving while intoxicated on 19 May 1967.  On 26 June 1967 he was given Article 15 punishment for failure to go.  On 7 November 1967 he was again given Article punishment for failing to meet two required formations.  The staff psychiatrist indicated in his psychiatric evaluation that he strongly recommended that, because of the applicant’s poor performance and failure to respond to rehabilitation attempts, he should be given an administrative discharge.  His supervisor had spent a great deal of time in counseling him without results.  His supervisor further indicated that the member had failed to show even a minimal interest in rehabilitating himself and did not think that any further effort was warranted.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, to present his case before an administrative discharge board, submit statements in his own behalf, or waive his rights after consulting with counsel.

After being counseled, the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 9 February 1968, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

On 23 February 1968, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with service characterized as general due to the applicant’s disciplinary record.

Applicant was discharged on 8 March 1968, in the grade of airman basic with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability).  He served a total of 2 years, 7 months and 6 days of total active military service.

On 15 October 1976, the AFDRB granted the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant waited over 35 years after discharge before he petitioned the Board.  His unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as relevant records have been destroyed or are no longer available, memories have failed, and witnesses are unavailable.  The documentation contained in the applicant’s record indicates he was discharged in the proper grade - airman basic.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that he was told that his personnel records were lost.  He believes that he was not given proper counseling to improve his service in the Air Force.  He indicates that if he had the knowledge he has now he would have sought help and possible legal counsel to question the Article 15s.  He could have served better, however, he served with honor and pride while others chose not to do so.  He feels as though he deserved at least an E-2 rank.  

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting reinstatement of his rank of airman third class (A3C).  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  The applicant received three Article 15s in two years resulting in his reduction in grade to airman basic, and a civil conviction for driving while intoxicated.  We find no evidence that the Article 15 actions taken against the applicant were in error or unjust.  Further, there is no indication that the commanders abused their discretionary authority when they imposed the non-judicial punishment or that the applicant was not given his rights as required.  The applicant indicates that he was not given proper counseling to improve his service.  On the contrary, it is noted that his supervisors counseled him on numerous occasions regarding his behavior and work habits.  As a last resort, his supervisor requested a psychiatric evaluation to determine his attitude, aptitude, and possible rehabilitation as a useful member of the Air Force.  On balance, it appears that the applicant received fair and equitable treatment prior to being discharged.  Notwithstanding the decision by the AFDRB to upgrade the applicant’s characterization of discharge to honorable, there is no documentary evidence in the applicant’s records that would lead us to believe he was discharged in the improper grade.  In view of the foregoing, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2003-02142 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 June 2003.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 July 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 August 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.