RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01028
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  None
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for a medical hardship due to a family emergency; he should not have received an undesirable discharge.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 May 72, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.  His highest grade held was airman.

Documents in the applicant’s military personnel records (MPR) reflect the following punishments:

1) Article 15 on 27 Nov 72, for failure to report for duty on   20 Nov 72; punishment imposed was forfeiture of $30.00 pay and 14 days extra duty; 2) Article 15 on 12 Mar 73, for failure to report for duty on 22 and 23 Feb 73; punishment imposed was reduction in grade to airman basic, forfeiture of $50.00 pay, and 14 days extra duty; (3) Special Court-Martial on 18 May 73, for being absent without authority (AWOL) from 29 Mar - 3 Apr 73 and failure to repair; punishment consisted of confinement to hard labor for 15 days, and forfeiture of $178.00 pay; and (4) Special Court-Martial on 8 Aug 73, for disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer, and being AWOL from 5-10 Jul 73; punishment consisted of confinement to hard labor for three months, immediate entry into the Retraining Program, and forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for three months.

On 18 Oct 73, applicant met a Classification Board (Final) to determine whether to return the applicant to duty or process for administrative discharge.  Applicant stated before the Board that it was his desire to return to duty.  After considering all factors, the Board unanimously recommended the applicant be discharged for frequent involvement IAW paragraph 2-15a, Section B of AFM 39-12.

On 23 Oct 73, applicant’s commander concurred with the unanimous recommendation of the Board.  He stated that applicant’s poor civilian record, prior military performance, and performance in the retraining program makes an Undesirable Discharge appropriate.  Applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation for discharge for unfitness, and of the specific reasons for the proposed discharge.  

On 7 Nov 73, applicant requested a hardship discharge by reason of dependency hardship.  On 13 Nov 73, the Retraining Group Commander disapproved his request.  The commander stated although it appeared that his wife’s condition may warrant his release from the Air Force, the facts observed and noted unanimously by Retraining Group personnel leave little room for deviation from his original decision.  He further stated that on 18 Oct 73, applicant met a Classification Board (Final Board) and pleaded for an opportunity to remain in the Air Force, with no mention of a hardship discharge.

On 5 Dec 73, after consulting with legal counsel, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

Applicant was discharged on 10 Jan 74, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section B (Unfitness -frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities), and was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge (undesirable) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 11 days of active military service (excludes 107 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement).

On 17 Jun 82, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  After review of the evidence of record, the AFDRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant’s discharge should not be changed.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit B.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Unfitness or Misconduct; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. (Extract copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit D).  Nor has he shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.   At the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFM 39-12, paragraph 2-15a, Section B., stated that when discharged because of unfitness an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge certificate will be furnished.  Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.  

On 30 Apr 07, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review/comment.  At the same time the applicant was invited to provide additional information concerning his post-service activities since leaving the service (Exhibit E).

The applicant responded with a personal letter summarizing his military service and accomplishments since his discharge, a resume, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision letter.  

He states he was excited and committed to his military career and strove to meet the highest standards of performance.  His misconduct was directly related to his family’s medical hardship.  He applied for a Medical Hardship Discharge and was denied.  Since his discharge, he has had many educational and professional accomplishments and is currently pursuing a degree in Information Technology & Network Security.  He has over ten years of professional experience in “leading edge” technology, network security, engineering, and educational principles.

Applicant’s complete response is 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 careful consideration of the available evidence, we find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant’s discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  Although the applicant states he has been a valued member of his community and society, and has provided some evidence pertaining to his post service activities, in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to general on the basis of clemency.  In view of the above we find no basis to warrant favorable action on this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number    BC-2007-01028 in Executive Session on 5 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-01028 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Extract, AFM 39-12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Apr 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 May 07, w/atchs.

								XXXXXXXXXX
								Chair