RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00239
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge upgraded.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 1958 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

The applicant received a summary court-martial and was found guilty of sleeping while on post on 18 June 1958.  He received confinement for 30 days and fined $50.  The commander’s statement on 5 November 1958 indicates that the applicant was irresponsible and lacked sense of duty and was immature.  

On 14 July 1958, the applicant was eliminated from the engine mechanic course due to failing grades.  Upon arrival at his duty location, he was enrolled in an education course but told his commander he would not be able to pass unless he was relieved from duty to study.  He was offered a tutor for assistance but did not accept.

Applicant was discharged on 7 November 1958, in the grade of airman basic.  He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions AFR 39-16 (unproductive airman).  He served 6 months and 9 days total active duty service with 11 days lost time.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report, which is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated 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 new errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at Exhibit E.

On 8 April 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within fourteen (14) days.  Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

On 6 May 2002, a copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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.	We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00239 in Executive Session on 20 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 January 2002.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 March 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 March 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 March 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 April 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 May 2002, w/atchs.