RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02862
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was highly advised to take this discharge by his attorney at the time. In early 1971 he had written to his congressman about his first sergeant and problems he was having with him.  A congressional investigation was started and that is when the base commander recommended that he be discharged.  He was actually trying to leave McGuire and transfer to another base.  He was going to make a career of the Air Force.  At the same time he was having problems with a girl friend back home.  He was an aircraft loadmaster on a C-141 and flew several missiles into Vietnam.  He cannot get the Vermont Medal under current discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a letter from his senator.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 June 1969 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman on 5 August 1969, and the grade of airman first class on 1 February 1970.  He received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 1 August 1970 and 1 February 1971, in which the overall evaluations were “9” and “3.”

On 24 March 1971, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending a general discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  Basis for the action:  Article 15, dated 4 September 1970, for failure to repair; punishment consisted of reduction to airman (suspended for six months) and forfeiture of $25 for two months; vacation of suspension on 13 November 1970 for failure to repair on 28, 29 and 30 September 1970; Article 15, dated 2 March 1971, for failure to repair, punishment consisted of reduction to airman basic (suspended for six months), 30 days of extra duty and forfeiture of $25 for two months; vacation of suspension and Article 15, dated 10 March 1971, for failure to obey a lawful order on 8 March 1971; punishment consisted of reduction to airman basic vacated and restriction to base for 30 days; and a Letter of Reprimand, dated 24 March 1971, for dereliction in performance of duty (failure to repair) on 21 March 1971.  His commander recommended a general discharge.  On 6 April 1971, after consulting with legal advisor, he waived his right to present matters to an administrative discharge board and declined to submit statements.  He stated he understood he could receive a general discharge and that he might be denied veterans’ benefits as a result of the discharge.  The base legal services reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The judge advocate recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because of the frequency of applicant’s offenses and his negative response to counseling.  The Discharge Authority reviewed the case and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 27 April 1971 under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served one year, ten months and eight days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record, which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe 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.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he has learned many things in life.  He thinks his biggest one was how to deal with his own problems and keep himself out of trouble.  He doesn’t blame the first sergeant for everything, but he didn’t help when he was having problems.  He does feel that he has learned from his mistakes and corrected them.  If he knew back then what he knows now, he might have been able to avoid the trouble he got himself into.

He had never given any thought to this until recently when Vermont was awarding medals for veterans who had served in Vietnam.  He figured that he deserved one also because he went to Vietnam on several missions.  However, they will only award the medal to someone with an honorable discharge.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 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 application, BC-2003-02862, in Executive Session on 4 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Sep 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Response, undated.