RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00237
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge be upgraded.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a character reference letter, dated 10 January 2002, and his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 October 1951 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 23 March 1955, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for the following reasons:

	On 1 October 1952, the applicant received a summary court-martial for failure to repair and was demoted to airman basic, received 45 days’ restriction and was fined $50.

	On 3 June 1953, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to repair.  He received 2 hours extra duty for 14 days.

	On 11 October 1954, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to repair.  He received 14 days’ restriction.

	On 3 November 1954, the applicant received a summary court marital for failure to repair.  He was demoted to airman basic, confined at hard labor for 15 days and was fined $30.  Then he received a special court-martial for being absent without leave from 30 December 1954 through 17 January 1955.  He received 3 months’ confinement with hard labor and was fined $150.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was assigned to his organization for approximately 2 years and 11 months.  During that period the flight commander, his section NCOIC, the squadron adjutant, and the first sergeant had counseled him on numerous occasions.  Efforts had been made to isolate the applicant’s problems whether official or personal, and upon each counseling the applicant stated that he had no particular problems and that he would make every effort toward becoming a satisfactory airman.  The applicant had been assigned to duty in the communications center and had served under various noncommissioned officers and duty officers.  At times he performed his assigned duties well; however, his continued laxness and periods of absences resulted in distrust of him by his supervisors.  It was necessary to constantly remind him of his shortcomings as pertained to uniform and barracks regulations.  The commander further stated that the applicant should be eliminated from the Air Force based on his continued violation of military law and regulations.

On 23 March 1955, the applicant submitted an application for discharge.  He indicated that he waived his entitlement to appear before the board and requested discharge without benefit of board proceedings.  

On 14 April 1955, the commander approved the applicant’s request for discharge.

On 4 May 1955, the applicant’s discharge was approved.

Applicant was discharged on 10 May 1955, in the grade of airman basic with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.  He served a total of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days of total active military service with 111 days of lost time.

On 22 June 1955, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicate that based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, 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, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  He has filed a timely request.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 March 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 19 March 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 probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  The discharge apparently complied with the governing regulation in effect at that time; therefore, we believe his separation was appropriate.  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 probable 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 02-00237 in Executive Session on 18 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 December 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 February 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 March 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 March 2002.