RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01101
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharged be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was only one or two days from the date his suspension would have been over.  He didn’t hire a military attorney.  He was young at that age and was still on duty during the Vietnam War.  He is ill and dying and feels he has matured 32 years later.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge From the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 June 1972.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Airman First Class with a date of rank (DOR) of 14 March 1973.  On 28 March 1974, he was given an Article 15 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 14-18 March 1974.  He was demoted to the grade of airman, sentence suspended until 15 May 1974.  The suspension was vacated on 24 April 1974 for his failure to repair on 5, 8 and 9 April 1974 and he was demoted to the grade of airman with a DOR of 24 April 1974.  On 24 September 1974, as a result of a Special Court Martial proceeding, he was charged with wrongfully being in possession of 627 grams, more or less, of marijuana on 24 May 1974.  He changed his not guilty plea to guilty and was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confined for 5 months from 30 July 1974 to 4 December 1974, forfeited $100 per month for 5 months and reduced to airman basic.  The BCD was suspended until 4 June 1974.  He was discharged on 30 May 1975 after having served 2 years, 7 months, and 17 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10.  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, the issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge was outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit C).   Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so inclined.

Attached at Exhibit D is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of characterization of service and how standards have changed since 1959.

_________________________________________________________________

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.	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 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.

4.	We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.  Applicant has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities and accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  Should applicant provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01101 in Executive Session on 16 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Excerpt, AFR 39-10.
    Exhibit D.  Memo, AFBCMR Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair