RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03514

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The error was caused due to the time of his enlistment.  He was a good troop for the first one and a half years.  He then opposed the war in Vietnam, and was threatened, harassed and punched by a Sgt  _. He was also passed over for advancement because of this man.  He tried to transfer out and it was rejected.  He then went AWOL because he did not know how else to deal with it at the time.  When court-martialed, he was too afraid of Sgt C__to disclose the real reasons for his AWOL.  He truly regrets his actions.

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 on 2 December 1965.  On 20 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 February - 19 March 1967 (30 days) and returned on his own.  He was AWOL again,     26 April-15 May 1967 (19 days).  He received a Special Court-Martial and was confined at hard labor for 3 months and fined $192.  He was in confinement from 7 July to 14 September 1967 (70 days).  The commander notified the member on 17 October 1967 that he was being recommended for discharge.  On 20 September 1967, a psychiatric evaluation stated the member could be best described as a sociaopathic personality, antisocial type--impairment, marked for military service. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (character and behavior disorders) with service characterized general (under honorable conditions) on 1 November 1967 in the grade of airman basic.  He served 1 year, 11 months and 15 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation in file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the separation 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.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated as the “facts” portion of the letter may be correct, he stated in his original application that he might not have handled the problems he encountered in the manner that he would today.  However, he was harassed, threatened and denied advancement by one, Sgt  __, all because he opposed the Vietnam War.  If the Board has the ability (after all these years) to find all records and files, the Board will see that he was given advancement twice and it was denied to him by Sgt  __ crossing his name off the list and throwing his advancement letter away.  There is no way to prove the many threats of harm made to him on the flight line when it was just he and Sgt  __.  There is no way to prove today the injustice he served as a result of him.  Even other NCOs came to him and said that he was a good troop and should not be harassed like that.  He has stated that he did not handle this problem well.  He did request transfers and they were denied, so he ended up running.

As far as being “sociaopathic personality, antisocial type” he believes that most of us that were opposed to the war were called that.  He met with a psychiatrist one time for a half hour.  He is not sure that he could really make that determination in that amount of time.  He told him that he wanted to stay in the Air Force if he could be transferred.

The Board may ask, why he would go through all this to receive an honorable discharge given that he has under his present discharge all the rights of an honorable?  As he has stated before, he has cleared up his entire past and request this consideration.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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, the Board excused the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his discharge.  After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to affect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct.  Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03514 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 03, w/atch
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Nov 03.