RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03691
		INDEX CODE: 110.00
 	XXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE
			  		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His recruiter changed his enlistment papers and had him sign new papers.  These papers omitted item number 18 on the “statement of personal history” section.  This was proven to his Air Force lawyer.  He was offered the opportunity to reenlist and he declined.  However, an under honorable conditions discharge was placed on his DD Form 214 without his understanding.  He was honest; however, his recruiter falsified the paperwork.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History; an excerpt on Enlisted Administrative Separations and a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 January 1972.

On 15 December 1972, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter 2, section A, paragraph 2-4b for apathetic and defective attitude, behavior, and personal abuse of drugs.  The specific reasons for this action were on or about 29 November 1972 he was charged with possession of .01 grams, more or less of marijuana in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was diagnosed with an immature personality and a poor prognosis if retained in the military.

On 15 December 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification.  

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 22 December 1972, he was discharged in the grade of airman. He served a total of one year and sixteen days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigation report (Exhibit C).  The applicant provided a response to the information contained in the FBI Report, which is at Exhibit F.

On 24 January 2008, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit D).  In response to our request, applicant provided documentation, which is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the applicant seems to imply that the basis for his discharge was fraudulent enlistment and states the Air Force tried to court-martial him for lying to gain entry into the Air Force.  If his statements are accurate, the commander may have indeed contemplated court-martial action but in light of evidence presented decided to withdraw the action.  However, there is no evidence in his record to confirm or deny this action.  What is clear from the record is the basis for discharge was not for fraudulent enlistment as he contends; rather, he was discharged for an immature personality and possession of marijuana.  He states he was not informed of the type of discharge until the day he was released from the Air Force.  The record simply does not support this statement; he was notified of the discharge action and advised of the recommended general discharge.  Lastly, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The complete DPSOS advisory is attached at Exhibit G. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating some of the records appear to be wrong.  He stands by the fact that he was denied flight line duty because of supposedly false paperwork.  The advisory does not mention that he received a court-martial for automotive problems that caused him to return to base two to three days late.  He does not remember being arrested for drugs.  He spent six to seven months buffing floors and wonders why it took until November to come up with a 01 gram marijuana problem and then discharge him 25 days later.  He has been a hard working husband and father of two step-sons.  He has run a successful locksmith service for over 30 years and has been an asset to his community.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

________________________________________________________________

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 he was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  He has not shown the characterization of the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, nor has it been shown that the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Considered alone, we conclude 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 the applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge and available evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments.  We do not believe that clemency is warranted at this time.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMEDS:

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-2007-03691 in Executive Session on 28 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03691 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 October 2007, w/atchs. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 January 2008, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 February 2008.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 March 2008.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 April 2008.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 April 2008.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 April 2008, w/atchs.