RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00200
		INDEX CODE: 110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant had two previous enlistments for which he received honorable discharges (9 Nov 46 and 26 May 50).  His last reenlistment was on 18 Aug 50 for a period of four years.  On 18 Jan 51, while serving in the grade of private first class, the applicant received an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (conviction by civil authority).  At the time of his discharge, he had served a total of 3 months and 8 days, with 53 days of lost time.  His total net service for pay purposes was 4 years, 8 months and 19 days.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 25 Apr 02, that, on the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  DPPRS stated that the applicant was tried and convicted for a felony by civil authorities of the District of Wyoming for larceny on a Government reservation.  He was sentenced to two (2) years’ confinement at a Federal Reformatory in OK, with an effective date of 2 Jan 51.  Official court order papers state the applicant appeared in person without counsel.  The applicant waived the right to assistance of counsel and pled guilty.  DPPRS indicated that the Air Force does not provide legal counsel in civil matters.  A previous Summary Court-Martial convicted the applicant on 3 Dec 47 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 to 25 Nov 47.  His punishment consisted of restriction to base, forfeiture of $25.00 and reduction to the grade of private.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that his civil conviction was for 1 year not 2 years.  He further disagrees that he was advised of his right to counsel.  The reason he pled guilty was for medical assistance.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit 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 error or injustice.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPRS).  We therefore adopt their rationale 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.  In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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 02‑00200 in Executive Session on 15 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s response, post-marked 19 Mar 02.