RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01242
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He became a compulsive gambler after being assigned to Las Vegas and asked his commanding officer for help prior to his trouble.  Since he was unable to get help, he broke the law to stop him from gambling.  In addition, he asks that his prior service be considered in this request.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s two prior enlistments in the Regular Air Force (29 Oct 48 - 5 May 52 for a period of 3 years, 6 months and 7 days of active duty service, and 6 May 52 - 6 May 55 for a period of 3 years of active duty service) reflect he was honorably discharged.  He reenlisted in the grade of airman first class on 23 May 55 for a period of 6 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.

The applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for the following violations:

	a.  On or about 5 May 56, the applicant wrongfully appropriated $7.00, the property of a gas station in North Las Vegas.  The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	b.  On or about 5 Jul 56, without proper authority, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty.  The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	c.  On or about 14 Aug 56, without proper authority, the applicant absented himself from his organization and remained so absent until on or about 15 Aug 56.  The commander, on 15 Aug 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman third class (permanent) and a reprimand.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 17 Aug 56, applicant was tried before a summary court-martial  at Nellis AFB.  He pled guilty to being AWOL (15-16 Aug 56).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days and reduction to the grade of airman basic.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 17 Aug 56.

On 5 Dec 56, the applicant was recommended for discharge by reason of conviction by a Civil Court for burglary, with a suspended 2-year state prison sentence, and placed on probation for a period of 1 year.  He received an undesirable discharge on 10 Dec 56.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months and 19 days of his current enlistment and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  The applicant had 59 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the applicant has two honorable discharges (6 years, 6 months and 7 days) prior to his undesirable discharge.  The commander recommended the applicant for an undesirable discharge for a conviction by a civil court for an offense (burglary) punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1 year.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS indicated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  However, considering the discharge was over 44 years ago, his previous honorable service and the type of offenses, DPPRS would recommend clemency.  If a check of the FBI files proves negative, DPPRS recommended the discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 01 for review and response.  A copy of the FBI investigation was forwarded to applicant on 22 Jun 01.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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 evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his 1956 discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct.  We did note, as the applicant indicated, that his prior service performed from 1948 to 1955 was honorable.  We further noted that the applicant provided no documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good citizenship in the community for the past 20 years.  Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which has elapsed, this, and his prior honorable discharges, could be a basis for reconsideration of his appeal based on clemency.  However, in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record and the lack of documentation provided of good post-service conduct, we are not persuaded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to general on the basis of clemency at this time.  We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant request.
_________________________________________________________________

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 16 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record for 401980C.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 May 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01, and AFBCMR,
               dated 22 Jun 01.

                                   Panel Chair