RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01746
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a hardship discharge.  Prior to his discharge, he was experiencing family problems and was needed at home.  He was advised by his commander to request an undesirable discharge so he could be discharged from the service faster.  He feels it is unfair for him to carry the stigma of an undesirable discharge and would like to have it changed.  

In support of his request, he submits a personal statement, and 4 character references.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 May 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years. 

On 10 September 1951, he failed to report that a member was operating a government vehicle while intoxicated and that he was a party to the circumstances leading to this offense by purchasing three (3) cans of beer.  For this incident, he was disciplined under Article 15 and was directed to report to the Dining Hall each day for a period of two (2) weeks for two (2) hours of extra duty.

On 18 November 1951, he was charged with violating curfew regulations, entering an off-limits area and illegally entering the Motor Pool area.  For this incident, he was disciplined under Article 15 and was reduced to the grade of private (E-2) and reprimanded.  

On 18 April 1952, the applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 134, disorderly in station.  For this incident, he was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 30 days and to forfeit fifty-three ($53.00) dollars of his pay.

On 23 April 1953, he was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for violation of Article 86, Absent Without Leave (AWOL), from 31 March 1953 to 20 April 1953.  For this incident, he was confined at hard labor for 25 days and was ordered to forfeit thirty ($30.00) dollars of his pay.

From 31 March 1953 to 19 April 1953, he was charged with AWOL.

From 20 July 1953 to 21 July 1953, he was charged with AWOL.  For this incident, he was ordered to perform extra duty two hours per day from 21 July through 1 August 1953.

On 30 September 1953, he was charged with speeding and drunkenness.  For this incident he was ordered to perform extra duty two hours per day, from 30 September through 9 October 1953.

From 7 December 1953 to 15 December 1953, he was charged with AWOL.  

On 19 November 1953, discharge proceedings were initiated under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).  The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and that an undesirable discharge would be recommended.  On 26 January 1954, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the foregoing and of his rights in the matter.  After consulting legal counsel, he waived his right to a Board of Officers hearing and acknowledged that his separation from the Air Force might be under conditions other than honorable and he could receive an undesirable discharge.   

On 19 February 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 2 years, 3 months and 22 days total active service. Time lost was 152 days due to AWOL and confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI provided an investigative report pertaining to the applicant. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and state that based upon documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  They further state that the applicant has not provided any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and FBI report were forwarded to the applicant on 27 July 2001 and 9 October 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (see Exhibits D and 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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We found no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge. It appears that the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the discharge, and the applicant has not provided convincing evidence demonstrating that pertinent regulations were violated or that he was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  We note that the applicant provided some character references pertaining to his post-service activities; however, the Board does not believe this evidence is sufficient to warrant clemency.  It has been more than 50 years since the applicant’s separation.  In view of this fact, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in this matter without the submission of more expansive evidence of the applicant’s post-service activities and testimonials by friends and responsible citizens who know him.  In the absence of such evidence, the applicant’s request 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 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 5 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 June 2001 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 July 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 August 2001.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 October 2001, w/FBI Report.