RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03389
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told at the time of his court-martial not to say anything or they would give him a dishonorable discharge and that if he didn’t say anything he would just receive disciplinary action.  After discharge he contacted the Adjutant General’s office, and filled out a DD Form 293 and sent it back, but he never heard from anyone.

He has been making a living and raising his five children, college education, and now would like to resolve this issue.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits letters from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 27 Jun 62, and a letter to the Adjutant General’s office, dated 4 Jun 62.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 July 1959, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1).  Prior to the events under review, applicant was promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C/E-2) with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 23 October 1959.  Applicant’s grade at the time of discharge was airman basic (E-1), with a DOR and effective date of 2 September 1960.

On 17 April 1961, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-17, para 4a.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were due to applicant’s failure to maintain the standards of a good airman and frequent involvement of a dishonorable nature with civil and military authorities, as evidenced by the following specific incidents:

On 2 Sep 60, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for purchasing tax-free items for persons not authorized.  He was sentenced to a reduction in grade to airman basic and forfeiture of $60.

On 17 Sep 60, applicant was apprehended by the military police for violation of curfew hours.  He was punished under Article 15 and restricted to the base for 14 days.

On 5 Oct 60, applicant was placed on the Control Roster for receiving a derogatory AF Form 75 (Airman Performance Report).

On or about 23 Dec 60, applicant was apprehended by civil authorities while assisting in an attempted sale of a pistol, property of the U. S. Government.  He was restricted to the confines of the base.

On 10 Jan 61, applicant attempted to break restriction but was not allowed by military police.  On 12 Jan 61, he was observed outside the checkpoint gate.

On 3 Mar 61, applicant broke restriction and was apprehended by military police in an off-limit house of prostitution.

On 17 April 1961, 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.

On 1 June 1961, the wing commander recommended approval of Discharge for Unfitness, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.  On 8 June 1961, the discharge authority approved the Discharge for Unfitness.

On 20 June 1961, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 by reason of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 11 months and 15 days of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s request and 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.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by providing his account of the events leading up to his discharge.  He indicates that he would be willing to make a personal appearance to the Board to discuss his side of the story.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

On 25 February 2002, 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.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence to indicate that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.

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 post-service activities and accomplishments.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

5.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-03389 in Executive Session on 9 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Dec 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.