RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01967
		INDEX CODE: 110.00

		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge upgraded.

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) in St. Louis, Missouri.  Other than the applicant’s attached brief and a copy of his Certificate of Military Service obtained from NPRC, the facts leading to the discharge are not available in his records.  The available records indicate the applicant was administratively discharged for unfitness and his separation resulted from his own misconduct.  The applicant admits in his affidavit of sleeping on post, having a pistol, and leaving base without signing out- absent without leave (AWOL).  He was convicted by summary court-martial.  He states his punishment was too harsh compared to today’s standards.

The applicant was discharged on 19 July 1957, in the grade of airman basic with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness.  He served 2 years, 2 months, and 28 days of total military service.

On 7 December 1979 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that based upon the limited documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  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.  He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of this discharge.  He did not file a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 June 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  

On 1 August 2002, the applicant requested his case be temporarily withdrawn.

On 23 September 2002, the applicant’s case was temporarily withdrawn.

On 26 March 2003, the applicant’s case was reopened in accordance with his request (Exhibit H).

On 14 April 2003, a copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, it appears the applicant’s personnel files were apparently destroyed by fire in 1973; therefore, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the service member’s separation was proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  The only other basis upon which to upgrade his discharge would be based on clemency.  However, a review of the FBI investigative report indicates his behavior continued and worsened after his separation.  Consequently, we find no justification to recommend upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling reason to recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 this application in Executive Session on 12 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01967 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 July 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 July 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 August 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 September 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, DAV, dated 26 March 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 April 2003.

				Vice Chair