ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00228
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires an upgrade of his discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 January 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 28 September 1971, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Unsuitability.  The specific reasons follow:

	  a.  On 28 March 1971, he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  He was arrested at 0215 hours and confined in the State jail, Fairbanks, Alaska.  He was arraigned at 0930 hours in the Civil Court of Fairbanks and found guilty of driving while under the influence.  He was fined $300.00 with $150.00 being suspended.

	  b.  On 7 April 1971, he was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for conduct prejudicial to the standards expected of a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO).  His name was also placed on the Airman Control Roster.  Due to the incident on 28 March 1971, he was scheduled to attend Remedial Driver’s Training.

	  c. On 12 April 1971, his base driving privileges were suspended for six months due to the incident on 28 March 1971.

	  d.  On 30 May 1971, he was observed and cited for operating his privately owned vehicle on base while his driving privileges were under suspension.  For this offense, his driving privileges were suspended for two years.

	  e.  On 7 July 1971, he was reported as being disorderly in station and was given an LOR.

	  f.  On 22 August 1971, he was reported as being drunk and disorderly on station and he resisted being lawfully apprehended.  For this offense he was administered an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

	  g.  On 24 August, 8 September, and 13 September 1971, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation at Eielson AFB.  He was further tested and evaluated on 9 September 1971 at Bassett Army Hospital, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.  Results of the evaluations indicated the applicant had a character and behavior disorder defined as an “antisocial personality disorder.”  Recommendations by the psychiatrists were for administrative separation from the Air Force.

	  h.  On 15 September 1971, he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and he assaulted a State law enforcement officer.  He was arraigned on 16 September 1971 in the Civil Court of Fairbanks.  He pleaded guilty on both offenses and was ordered to be confined for 10 days on each count.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was not recommended for probation and rehabilitation in accordance with Chapter 4, AFM 39-12.  He had not demonstrated a motivation for military service and the commander felt the applicant could not be developed to the extent of absorbing military training and becoming a satisfactory airman.  Two competent psychiatrists recommended prompt administrative separation.

The commander advised the applicant that an evaluation officer would personally interview him and counsel him regarding his case.  He was also given the opportunity to submit a rebuttal and make statements in his own behalf.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 1 October 1971, the Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge as soon as possible.

On 5 October 1971, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge under the provisions of Chapter 2, Section A, Paragraph 2-4b, AFM 39-12, without rehabilitation.

On 6 October 1971, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 15 October 1971, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Unsuitability).  He served 2 years, 8 months, and 22 days of total active military service with 10 days of lost time.

On 15 June 1973, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B).

On 11 July 1973, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) denied the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B).

On 20 October 1982, the AFBCMR staff determined the applicant’s request for reconsideration to upgrade his discharge did not meet the requirements for reconsideration.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at Exhibit C.

On 3 March 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 22 March 2005, the applicant was provided the opportunity to respond to the FBI investigation within 20 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The Board believes responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we again find no compelling basis to change our previous decision in this application.

2.	Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  In this respect, we note the applicant’s continued misconduct following his discharge.  Further, when given the opportunity to provide information regarding his post-service activities and accomplishments, he failed to do so.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2005-00228 in Executive Session on 19 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 January 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 March 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 March 2005.

				Panel Chair