RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01053
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He will make his contentions known at a hearing.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 December 1951, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman second class (A2C/E-3).  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1).

Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of excellent from 25 Jan 52 – 12 Feb 52; from 13 Feb 52 – 23 Feb 52, ratings were unknown; and from 27 Feb 52 – 1 Sep 54, ratings were excellent.

On 16 Mar 55, the squadron section commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for being a habitual shirker and malcontent, being belligerent towards all moves to rehabilitate him, and for his continued series of offenses which were detrimental to good order and military discipline.

On 17 Mar 55, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings.  He further acknowledged that he understood that if his application was approved, that his separation could be under conditions other than honorable and that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a veteran under both federal and state legislation.

The remaining relevant facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge are contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Examiner’s brief at Exhibit B.

On 5 Apr 55, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 by reason of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 18 days active service (excludes 47 days of lost time under Art 140, Sec 6a, UCMJ, 1951).

On 23 April 1964, the AFDRB found that neither evidence of record, nor that provided by the applicant, substantiated an inequity or impropriety, which would justify a change in the discharge.  They further concluded that the discharge should not be changed (See AFDRB Hearing Records at Exhibit B).

On 1 May 64, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable (Exhibit C).

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant’s frequent misconduct warranted the character of service given.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 June 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 15 August 2001, the FBI Report of Investigation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the 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.  Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  After careful consideration of the applicant’s overall quality of service reflected in the available records and in the absence of evidence relating to his post-service activities and conduct, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

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 issues 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 2 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAFCB, dated 1 May 64.
    Exhibit D.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 May 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Aug 01, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair