RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02109
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge he received was unjust and the penalty was too severe for the conditions involved.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, with three letters of support.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

With the consent of the applicant’s father, he [applicant] contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jan 52, at the age of 16, for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class, with an effective date of rank of 25 Feb 52.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic, with an effective date of rank of 21 Jun 52, pursuant to a summary court-martial conviction.

On 17 Oct 52, applicant was tried before a summary court-martial at Parks AFB, CA.  He pled guilty to being AWOL during the periods 25 Jul-7 Aug 52 (14 days); 8-14 Aug 52 (7 days); 3-5 Sep 52 (3 days); and 13-15 Oct 52 (3 days).  At the time, applicant had two previous summary court-martial convictions, also for being AWOL.  One prior conviction was for a 20 day (5-24 Jul 52) AWOL - sentence consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $30.00; and, the other conviction was for an 11 day (6-16 Jun 52) AWOL - sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $55.00.  The Oct 52 summary court-martial sentenced the applicant to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $50.00.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 17 Oct 52.

On 13 Oct 52, a Board of Officers convened at Parks AFB, CA, for the purpose of determining whether or not the applicant was totally unfit for further retention in the military service under the provisions of AFR 39-17.  On 23 Oct 52, the Board of Officers recommended the applicant be discharged from the service because of unfitness and furnished an undesirable discharge.  On 10 Nov 52, the applicant received an undesirable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (unfitness).  He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  He had 113 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS indicated that the applicant received three summary court-martial convictions.  His records also indicate that he was charged with theft, to include a rubber stamp reading “over 21” which was the property of the government and clothing belonging to another airman.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he was only 16 years of age when he entered the Air Force on 7 Jan 52.  Since he was a minor, the discharge he received was unjust and too severe a penalty for the conditions involved while on active duty.  He requests that all reasonable doubt in this matter be resolved in his favor and his discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions.  The applicant has provided a copy of his birth certificate, which reveals his date of birth as 2 Sep 35 rather than 2 Sep 34.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Although the applicant provided documentation regarding his post-service activities and accomplishments, we find this information to be of limited scope.  After reviewing applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge in 1952, it appears the discharge was in compliance with the governing Air Force regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  While it appears that the applicant was improperly enlisted at the age of 16 with parental consent, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was unable to discern the difference between right from wrong and to adhere to the the right.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of more expansive documentary evidence pertaining to his post service activities showing he has maintained the standards of good citizenship over an extended period of time, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 26 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jul o2.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02, and
               AFBCMR, dated 18 Sep 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 13 Aug 02, w/atchs.

                                   Panel Chair