RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01040
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Substance abuse played a role in his AWOL time.  He has since changed his life and is now a respected member of his community.  He implores the court or panel to remove this black mark from his life.  He served honorably up until this incident.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 February 1971 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman on 25 March 1971, and the grade of airman first class on 1 September 1971.

Applicant received punishment by Article 15 dated 14 June 1971 for the following:  He did, at Sheppard Air Force Base, on or about 1 and 2 June 1971, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit:  Course #XXXXXX-X, Building 1020, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, ordered to forfeit $30.00, ordered to perform extra duty for 14 days, and restricted to the limits of Sheppard AFB for 14 days, but the execution of that portion of this punishment which provides for the reduction to the grade of airman basic is suspended until 13 August 1971, at which time, unless sooner vacated, it will be remitted without further action.  These punishments are to run concurrently.

Records indicate applicant was reported AWOL from 6 October 1971 through 8 October 1971; 14 October 1971 through 13 November 1971; and from 7 December 1971 to 9 June 1972 (a total of seven months and six days).

On 10 May 1972, applicant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree.  On 6 and 9 June 1972, sentencing was deferred with the express understanding that the defendant, who was AWOL from the armed forces, and who had a “hold” on him as a result, would be turned over to the armed forces and dealt with accordingly.  When the armed forces was finished with him, the defendant would turn himself over to the Samaritan Halfway Society, a residential drug program which has already worked with and accepted the defendant.

On 13 June 1972, applicant was served with court-martial charges for being absent without leave from on or about 7 December 1971 to on or about 9 June 1972 (a total of six months and three days).  The case was referred to trial by special court-martial on 13 June 1972.

On 16 June 1972, applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of AFM 39-12 for the good of the service.  He understood that if his request for discharge was approved he may receive an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to submitting the request for discharge.

On 28 June 1972, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge action.  They recommended applicant be separated from the Air Force and issued an undesirable discharge.  The base legal office did provide the following comments:  (1) On 20 June 1972, the administrative discharge action began, based on applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service.  After consulting with legal counsel, applicant submitted a statement indicating he was addicted to heroin.  (2) Applicant sought help from the Air Force drug rehabilitation program before he went AWOL, but the attempt failed.

On 18 July 1972, Headquarters 21st Air Force legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant be discharged for the good of the service and receive an undesirable discharge.  Additionally, they indicate that perhaps the overriding consideration in this case is applicant’s drug addiction.

The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 20 July 1972 under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (request for discharge for the good of the service), with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He served 10 months and 7 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 June 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  On 29 June 2004, the applicant was invited to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.  On 8 July 2004, a copy of the applicant’s FBI Report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).

Applicant states that he does not have any excuses for his behavior at the time.  He was a twenty year old substance abuser and has since changed his life.  He left the Air Force with the intention of finding help for substance abuse and was successful in making a good life for his wife and children.  Over the past thirty years, he has regretted his actions and has had to bear the disgrace of having gotten an undesirable discharge.  His life now is very different and he now has the respect of his colleagues and friends.  His son is now twenty-three and thinking of going into the service, but didn’t know of his discharge and he had to tell him about the mistake.  It was the hardest thing he has had to do in a long time.  This he knows is not an issue for the board, but he would like to hold his head up again.  In support of his appeal, he provided four character references.  He hopes the Board will see fit to give him a second chance.  A copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

In response to the FBI report, applicant states that he was a drug user and he did the things stated in the report, of which he is not proud.  In 1992, he entered treatment at Samaritan Village in, New York.  This is a therapeutic community where he was treated and taught how to cope with his addiction.  He remained there for eighteen months and graduated a better person who now believes in himself.  Many people will say that once a junkie always a junkie; he is living testimony, that this is not true.  He celebrated twelve years sober in March.  His family now has their father, son and brother back.  In the past twelve years he has struggled to make amends to those whom he hurt and to reconstruct his life.  He has been blessed to have succeeded and now have good friends and a great career with University.  He is a trusted member of the community and he holds that trust dear.  This is just another step in that reconstruction, he would like the opportunity to say that he knows he is not owed anything.  He is just praying that the Board will show him clemency.  He is now the grandfather to five lovely children and he would like to be able to say that he has an honorable discharge.  A copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable 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.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, his service characterization was contrary to the governing regulation then in effect, or his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have reviewed the statements provided; however, we note that the applicant was discharged in 1972 and continued to commit offenses until 1991.  While it does appear that he has been a law abiding citizen since 1991, we do not find the limited documents provided warrants an upgrade of his discharge.  Should the applicant provide more detailed statements pertaining to his conduct/character since 1991, the Board would be willing to reconsider his request.  In view of the above determination, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jun 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letters, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jun 04, 29 Jun 04 and
				         8 Jul 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.	Applicant’s Response, dated 29 Jul 04.