RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01010
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge to be upgraded.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from his niece and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 July 1952 for a period of four (4) years.

On 2 August 1954, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for unfitness.  The commander indicated that the reason for the recommended action was evidence of habits or traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends.  He was also a habitual shirker.  The commander further indicated that applicant’s duties had been as Food Service Attendant, Ration Breakdown, and duties as Squadron Detail Man.  He had been counseled repeatedly by various commissioned and non-commissioned officers in efforts to train him to be a satisfactory airman.  However, all such efforts had not effectuated the rehabilitation of applicant.

The commander also indicated that the applicant had been tried by two (2) Summary Court-Martials and had received four (4) Article 15 non-judicial punishments; however, the record only reflects the following:

	On 25 April 1953, at 1045 hours, you failed to repair to duty in Dining Hall #4, Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and remained absent until 1730 hours 26 April 1953.  The following punishment was imposed:  demotion to the grade of airman basic.

	On 2 May 1954, at Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, Louisiana, without proper authority you failed to repair for duty at Dining Hall Number 4, 806th Food Service Squadron.  The following punishment was imposed: demotion to the grade of airman basic.

	Charge/Specification: You did on or about 8 May 1954, without proper authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: 806th Food Service Squadron, 806th Air Base Group, located at Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and did remain so absent until on or about 16 May 1954.

	Findings:  He was found guilty and sentenced to the following: To be restricted to the limits of Lake Charles Air Force Base for a period of thirty (30) days and a forfeiture of $35.00.

	Charge/Specification: On or about 21 June 1954 without proper authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

	Findings:  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for twenty-one (21) days and a forfeiture of $55.00.

The records also reflects:

	On 28-30 April 1953 the applicant was in civil confinement.

	On 2 March 1954 the applicant failed to repair to duty, and remained absent until 28 March 1954.

	On 19 July 1954 the applicant failed to repair to duty, and remained absent until 23 July 1954.

On 2 August 1954 the applicant submitted an application for discharge.

On 2 August 1954, after consulting counsel, applicant waived his right to appear before an AFR 39-17 Board and requested discharge without benefit of board proceedings.

Applicant was discharged on 3 September 1954, in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfit) with an undesirable discharge.  He served 1 year, 11 months, and 4 days total active duty with 74 days lost time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s niece reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 he was 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 and the events which precipitated the discharge.  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 02-01010 in Executive Session on 6 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 April 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 2002.