RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03432

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s records be corrected to entitle her to a widow’s pension; his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded; and, the time lost be reviewed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has a minor child and has no income since her husband’s death.  She has filed for a widow’s pension and badly needs help.  She does not understand what the dates and abbreviations mean in the Remarks Section of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her late husband’s death certificate and DD Form 214.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 October 1954 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class.

The former member was convicted by a Special Court Martial for two periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 27 June 1956 until on or about 10 August 1956, and from on or about 22 October 1956 until on or about 22 October 1956.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, forfeitures of $65 per month for six months, and confinement at hard labor for six months (three previous convictions were considered).  He was discharged on 15 April 1957, with a BCD.  He completed 1 year, 7 months, and 18 days of active service.  His DD Form 214, issued upon his discharge, reflects 301 days lost time.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the former member’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request to upgrade her late husband’s discharge be denied.  AFPC/DPPRS states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  There are no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPTR states, in part, that there is neither any evidence of error or injustice, nor any basis in law to grant applicant’s request for a widow’s pension (i.e., Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity).  The member did not have the required years of service or a medical disability to be eligible for retirement and was discharged.  The law does not provide an annuity to a widow of a discharged member.

The AFPC/DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPW recommends the applicant’s request that all lost time be deleted from her late husband’s record be denied.  AFPC/DPW states, in part, that the member’s days of lost time for all incidents during his enlistment totaled 406, rather than 301.  Since the record of court-martial proceedings support 406 days of lost time, they recommend AFPC/DPPRSP correct his DD Form 214 to reflect 406 days of lost time.

The AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 error or injustice.

	a.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that the servicemember’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.  In addition, there is no evidence to indicate that her late husband’s separation was inappropriate.  There being insufficient evidence of an error or injustice, we find no compelling basis to warrant upgrading the former member’s discharge.

	b.  With regard to applicant’s request for a widow’s pension, the former servicemember did not have the required 20 years of service or a medical disability to be eligible for retirement.  Therefore, there are no provisions in the law that would entitle her to a survivor benefit annuity.

4.  We noted AFPC/DPW’s recommendation to change the former member’s DD Form 214 to reflect 406 days of lost time rather than 301 days.  However, at this point in time we do not believe it would serve any useful purpose to make this change on the deceased former member’s DD Form 214.

5.  In regard to the applicant’s question regarding dates on the DD Form 214:  27 October 1954 reflects the date the former member entered the service; 15 April 1955 is the date he was demoted to the grade of airman basic (A/B); and 15 April 1957 is the date he was discharged from the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number 01‑03432 in Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 18 Jan 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 22 Apr 02.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.