RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01624
		INDEX CODE 110.00
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His other than honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unfair and should be upgraded based on clemency.

The applicant states that while assigned to Glasgow AFB, Montana, he purchased a hunting rifle that later turned-out to be stolen property.  As a result, he was charged with possession of stolen property and sentenced to one year in prison.  In spite of this incident, his military service was truly honorable as evidenced by his three previous performance reports that rate him as outstanding/exceptional.  He has carried the burden of the discharge for the past 36 years which is enough punishment.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from a couple whom he awoke when their house was on fire and a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 July 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.

On 15 January 1964, the commander imposed nonjudicial punishment against the applicant under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 31 (i.e., using disrespectful language towards his superior).  The punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman third class and forfeiture of $28.00.

From 26 August 1964 to 17 December 1964, based on a grand larceny conviction, the applicant served 97 days in the Valley County Jail, Glasgow, MT, and 17 days in the Deer Lodge Penitentiary.

The specific facts leading to the applicant’s discharge are not available.

On 17 December 1964, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-22.  He completed 3 years, 1 month and 1 day of active service, with 112 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, has provided an Investigative Report that is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that based upon the lack of documentation in the file, they believe the discharge must have been consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant provides no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the following:

	a.	He was transferred from the First Sergeant’s office to the records section for a period of 30 days.  After serving over 90 days in the section, he asked when he was going to be transferred back to the First Sergeant’s office and was told, “…when I get good dammed (sic) ready,” to which he replied, “that better be pretty damn quick.”  For this he received the Article 15.

	b.	The menacing charge on his FBI report was based on an incident that involved a town drunk at a tavern.  The individual walked in and said something about his wife and he pointed his index finger into his stomach and told him to leave, which he did and later pressed charges against him with the state police.

	c.	The trespassing charge involved an incident with his girlfriend’s father, who called the state police after he would not leave his girlfriend’s apartment.

	d.	He did write a bad check for $20; however, after discovering the error, he made restitution.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jul 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Oct 01, w/atch.