RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00224
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL: THE AMERICAN LEGION

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge; narrative reason for separation changed to convenience of the government, with a corresponding separation program designator and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “1. ”  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply to his case because under current standards he would not receive the type of discharge he did.  He states that he has been an outstanding citizen since his discharge.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided three (3) character references.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973 at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC).  Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot be verified.

The available records reflect that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 June 1955 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

The records also reflect he was in civil confinement for 3 days due to a traffic violation in 1958.  He was reduced from airman second class to airman third class effective 17 December 1957.

Applicant was discharged on 3 February 1958, in the grade of airman third class, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), in accordance with AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).    He completed 2 years, 7 months and 26 days of total active duty service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant’s records show that he was in civil confinement for 3 days due to a traffic violation in 1958.  He was reduced from airman second class to airman third class effective 17 December 1957.  Based upon the lack of documentation in the file, they believe the discharge must have been consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Even though the applicant’s records show no reason for the member’s demotion or discharge, the applicant also did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided character statements, but no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant was discharged for unfitness in accordance with AFR 39-17 on 3 February 1958, after serving 2 years, 7 months and 26 days active service.  As per Air Force policy at the time of his discharge his reenlistment eligibility status is correct and should not be changed.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 October 2002, copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and counsel for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 31 October 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within fourteen (14) days.  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 an error or an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action with respect to his requests.  The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the available evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.  The applicant’s personnel records appear to have been destroyed by fire and we do not know the circumstances surrounding his separation.  In the absence of these circumstances we cannot determine whether or not he would have received the same type of discharge under current standards.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant’s available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments; however, without more information regarding the events which precipitated the applicant’s discharge, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  In view of our recommendation regarding the applicant’s discharge, his remaining requests for a change in narrative reason for discharge and corresponding SPD and RE codes are moot issues.  Absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00224 in Executive Session on 21 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 March 2002, 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 October 2002, 
		       w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 October 2002.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 October 2002, w/atch.