RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00199

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young at the time and didn’t understand the disposition of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 May 1956, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  His highest grade held was airman third class (A3C/E-2).  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E 1).

Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of excellent for the periods 15 May 56 – 17 Jun 56, and 2 Jul 56 - 3 Feb 57.

On 18 Sep 56, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 Aug 56 until on or about 3 Sep 56.  He was sentenced to 30 days of hard labor without confinement and forfeiture of $25.

On 20 Mar 57, applicant was counseled by his supervisor and given extra detail for being one hour late for work.  On 27 Mar 57, applicant was again counseled and given extra detail for being 15 minutes late for work.

On 4 Apr 57, he was excused from dinner and did not return for 2 hours.  His supervisor asked about his absence and he replied with no excuse.  The matter was again brought to the commander’s attention and he was given an Article 15 with punishment of 2 hours of extra duty for 14 days.  In addition to the counselings, applicant was reminded on several occasions about his personal appearance by his supervisor and other members within his chain of command.  

The applicant received another Article 15 on 30 Apr 57, for failure to repair, on or about 26 Apr 57.  He acknowledged receipt on the same date.  The commander imposed punishment consisting of demotion to the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) and a reprimand.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 1 May 57, the TDP Commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of Department of the Air Force Letter, Subject: Discharge of Unproductive Airmen.  The bases for the proposed action were the incidents cited above.

On 4 May 57, the squadron commander concurred with the recommendation from the TDP Commander.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification on the same date.  On 14 May 57, the base surgeon certified that the applicant had no physical or mental condition which would warrant consideration by a physical evaluation board (PEB).  On 24 May 57, an evaluation officer explained the action which was recommended, and advised the applicant he could submit a rebuttal, which applicant elected not to do.  He recommended that applicant be discharged from the service.

On 28 Jun 57, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39‑16, with service characterized as under honorable conditions.  He was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of active service (excludes 8 days of lost time due to a period of AWOL).

On 29 May 61, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and disapproved applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge and waiver to permit reenlistment (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).

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 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 nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  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 indicated that he is now retired and a member of the American Legion.  He has been in public service employment most of his life since leaving the Air Force and is now retired from the city.  He provided additional supporting documents of his activities since leaving the service.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

In applicant’s response to the FBI report, he indicated that the information in the report reflects a different date of birth and social security number than his (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we find that the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations in effect at the time and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  It does not appear that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We noted the applicant’s comments concerning the FBI report; however, the investigative report obtained from the FBI, using his social security number (SSAN) as an identifier, does reflect his date of birth (DOB) as well as a different DOB and SSAN.  The FBI report notwithstanding, after careful consideration of the applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the available evidence related to his post-service activities, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his service to fully honorable 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 this application AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00199 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 14 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Mar 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jun 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jun 02.