RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02603

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was coerced in agreeing to this type of discharge.  He was also told that it would be upgraded in 7 years after discharge.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal letter.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1951 for a term of four years.  He was discharged from the Air Force on 30 July 1957 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (unfitness) and received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served 5 years, 3 months and 3 days total active service.  

The applicant received a Summary Court-Martial for a breach of the peace by wrongfully engaging in a fight on 31 March 1956, which led to the applicant's demotion to airman basic, confinement with hard labor for 30 days, and a $60 fine.  The applicant then received a Special Court-Martial for wrongful possession of and with the intent to deceive, a military pass on 13 July 1956 and broke restriction on 13 July 1956, which led to confinement with hard labor for 3 months and $210 fine.  He received an Article 15 for failure to repair to duty at the time prescribed on 8 August 1956 and received 14 days restriction.  He received another Article 15 for failure to report for duty on   17 July 1957 and was demoted to airman basic.  He had 100 days of lost time during two military confinement periods.
On 15 April 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the 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.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends his records remain the same.  He has not filed a timely request.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he believes the additional evidence to support his request for a record change should be the fact that he was not given due process of law.  He was lied to as to the punishment he was to receive from a summary court-martial.  He could have supplied witnesses that would have sworn that he was a victim and not a participant in the fight in question.  Had he not been lied to and shafted to "set an example" he would not have rebelled against the Air Force.   

He was one person setup by 4 or 5 Blacks and was trying to defend himself and for that he was court-martialed.  What happen to the Blacks involved?  He requested a general court-martial instead of a summary and his request was denied.  

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of the 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 the 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.  The only other basis upon which to upgrade this discharge would be based on clemency.  However, the applicant failed to provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities.  Should he provide documentary evidence pertaining to his post-service activities, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal.  In the absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-02603 in Executive Session on 20 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s response, dated 23 Sep 02