RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03445
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge given was incorrect and her late husband should have been given a General (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Aug 51, the deceased member enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for a period of four years.

The evidence in the record reflects that:

	a.  The former member received Article 15 punishment for failure to repair for duty on 8 and 9 Dec 51, with resulted in a reduction to the grade of private (rank converted to airman basic on 1 Apr 52).

	b.  He received three court-martials:  (1) for being AWOL 6-12 Feb 52, with punishment consisting of 27 days of restriction and forfeiture of $45; (2) for being AWOL 24 May to 1 Jul 52, with punishment consisting of three months of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $50 per month for three months; and (3) for being AWOL 24 Nov 52 to 14 Mar 53, for which he was sentenced to a BCD, six months of confinement to hard labor and forfeiture of $55 per month for six months.

On 17 Jun 53, the member was discharged from the Air Force with a BCD in the grade of airman basic.  He was credited with 8 months and 22 days of active service (excludes 391 days of lost time due to 3 periods of AWOL and 4 periods of confinement).

On 28 Sep 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the member’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of the information furnished (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommends denial.  They state that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, no facts warranting an upgrade of the deceased member’s discharge were furnished.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a three-page response which 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  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 service member’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.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that her late husband’s separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the service member'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 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 01-03445 in Executive Session on 26 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Investigative Report, FBI, dated 8 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 02.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 02.