RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01298
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by the sergeant in charge at the orderly room and the lieutenant that he should not receive an undesirable discharge, nor should he accept it, but if he did, he could have it changed after six months.  He thought he was receiving a hardship discharge because his ex-wife had run up a lot of bills and wrote a lot of bad checks, that he was trying to pay back.   The colonel gave him the undesirable discharge because he was absent without leave (AWOL) for returning to the base two days late after his mother died.

His discharge from the National Guard was honorable, but it disappeared after his ex-wife died.  In fact, anyone who would be able to stand up for him, or write a letter on his behalf, have passed away.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 May 52 in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four years.  Prior to the events under review he was promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C/E-2).  

Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of excellent for the period 28 Jul 52 - 15 Aug 52.

On 3 Nov 53, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-17, para 3a.  The specific reasons for the proposed action are evidenced by the following specific incidents:

In Aug 52, applicant was assigned to duty in the Firefighter career field.  He was given nine months of intensive on-the-job training (OJT) for AFSC 95130.  Twice he failed to qualify on the appropriate Job Knowledge Test (JKT).  In Jun 53, he was interviewed and assigned to duty as a painter in the Construction career field.  After three months of OJT, applicant was administered the JKT for AFSC 55231 and failed to attain a qualifying score.  It was his commander’s opinion that he was properly classified in the Firefighter career field.

On 3 Jun 53, applicant was counseled for being absent without leave (AWOL) three days.  No disciplinary action was taken at that time due to applicant’s story in regards to personal family problems.

In July 53, the First Sergeant made a definite attempt to resolve applicant’s personal and financial problems.

On 3 Sep 53, applicant was administered punishment under Article 15 for failure to go.

At 0715, 11 Oct 53, applicant was apprehended by the First Sergeant at a motel with a companion, a minor girl, who was not his wife.

On 12 Oct 53, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being AWOL between 5 - 11 Oct 53.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 27 days.

In summary, at each counseling the applicant presented a series of unwarranted circumstances to justify his misdemeanor.  His appearance was unkempt.  His personal habits of cleanliness left much to be desired.  His work was below standard in both quantity and quality, and he showed no judgment in handling his personal and financial responsibilities.  Therefore, it was the commander’s professional opinion that his separation was warranted.  The commander further noted that the applicant’s character was poor and his efficiency unsatisfactory.

On 2 Dec 53, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings.  He further acknowledged that he understood that if his application was approved, that his separation could be under conditions other than honorable and that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a veteran under both federal and state legislation.

On 3 Dec 53, the group commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of board action be accepted and he be furnished a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.”  On 5 Dec 53, the Numbered Air Force, Asst Adjutant, recommended approval.

On 11 Dec 53, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for failing to obey a lawful order on 10 Dec 53.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for one month and forfeiture of $34. 

On 21 Dec 53, the Numbered Air Force Director of Personnel approved applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-17 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 8 Jan 54, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 by reason of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1).  He was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of active service (excludes 35 days lost time due to periods of AWOL and confinement).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s request and found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and that he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a personal statement and letters of character reference from his wife and a friend, along with a letter from his employer; letters from two law enforcement agencies and the Loyal Order of Moose (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

4.  Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  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 02-01298 in Executive Session on 15 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 02, w/atchs.