RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-03081 INDEX CODE:	110.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.	His	records	be	amended	to	reflect	service	in	Vietnam	and Korea.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He objects to the way he was discharged from the service. He was never given an opportunity to waive his rights to a hearing or to consult with legal counsel nor was he explained the right to participate in the Air Force probation and rehabilitation program during the discharge process. In addition, he also contends he had flown into Vietnam and Korea several times.

In support of his application, the applicant provides several personal letters.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The	applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August	1969	
and	was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant.		
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Enlisted Personnel, Separation for Unsuitability, chapter 2 para 2-49, (Financial Irresponsibility), with a general (under honorable conditions)

discharge. The specific reasons for this action were that he received three Article 15s for uttering bad checks; and without authority, failing to go.

On 31 July 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification, waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, and understood that if the discharge authority approved the recommendation for his discharge, he would also determine the type of discharge to be issued to him. The discharge authority recommended approval of his discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate. On 11 August 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Enlisted Personnel, Separation for Unsuitability, chapter 2 para 2-49, (Financial Irresponsibility), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 3 years, 1 month and 15 days of total active military service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of his request to add service in Vietnam and Korea to his records. The applicant's personnel records contain no evidence of service in Vietnam or Korea.

The AFPC/DPAPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOs recommends denial of his request to upgrade his discharge and states that based on the documentation filed in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the characterization of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Although applicant states that he never waived his rights to a hearing or to consult with legal counsel; and was never explained his right to participate in the Air Force probation and rehabilitation program; based on the discharge in file, he acknowledged receipt indicating that he was afforded all rights and did waive his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board. However, since the applicant did not have over
16 years of service, the decision as to whether to grant probation and rehabilitation was at  the discretion of the discharge authority and not a right of the applicant. The record revealed the discharge authority did not approve the applicant

for probation and rehabilitation.

The AFPC/DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D

AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. However, should the Board choose to decide the case, they recommend it be denied based on its merit.

The AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states he is only asking for his DD Form 214 to reflect he was in Vietnam. He has included a copy of his flight orders as proof.

Applicant's complete response 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 an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded. Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing of his discharge and service characterization were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy. In respect to the applicant's contentions he never waived his rights to a hearing or to counsel, we note the discharge documentation in file shows that he acknowledged receipt of the discharge and waived these rights. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
1.	

decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.

4.	In regards to the applicant's request to amend his records to reflect service in Vietnam and Korea, we were unable to find any official military records indicating that he served in Vietnam or Korea. Therefore,  in view of the foregoing, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of his application.

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-2008-03081 in Executive Session on 1 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03081 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 2 Dec 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Mar 09, w/atch. Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Apr 09.
Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 09.
Exhibit G.	Applicant's Response, dated 21 Jun 09, w/atch.

Panel Chair