RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03696
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to the incident (failure to report to station in a timely manner) that led to his separation, no other such incident had ever taken place.  Therefore, a discharge under other than “honorable” was harsh.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jan 53 for a period of 4 years and was honorably discharged on 12 Dec 56 in the grade of airman first class (permanent).  He reenlisted on 13 Dec 56 for a period of 6 years.

On 27 Jun 57, the applicant received an Article 15 for speeding on base, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for which his punishment consisted of 2 hours of extra duty a day for 14 days.

On 27 Aug 59, the applicant was tried before a summary court-martial at McGuire AFB.  The specifications and charges were as follows:  (1) Being absent without authority from his appointed place of duty without proper authority, on or about 15 Aug 59, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  (2) Disobeying a lawful order to report for duty, on or about 18 Aug 59, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  He was found guilty and sentenced to a reduction in grade from airman first class to airman third class, forfeiture of $45.00 and restriction to base for 10 days.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 27 Aug 59.

On 3 Nov 59, the applicant was tried before a summary court-martial at McGuire AFB.  The specification and charge was for being absent without authority from his organization (AWOL), on or about 23 Oct 59 until on or about 28 Oct 59, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He was found guilty and sentenced to a reduction in grade from airman third class to airman basic, forfeiture of $40.00 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 3 Nov 59.

On 12 Jan 60, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge.  The reason for this action was due to defective attitudes as evidenced by his continued failure to meet the obligations and responsibilities of the military service.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.  On 26 Jan 60, an evaluation officer indicated he had interviewed and counseled the applicant concerning his rights.  The applicant declined to submit any written statements in his behalf.  The evaluation officer indicated that the applicant’s service did not appear to warrant an honorable discharge.  On 29 Jan 60, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 8 Feb 60 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (unsuitability).  He had completed a total of 6 years, 11 months and 28 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  The applicant had 30 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant’s file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he was young and foolish and did not know how to handle the problems he was faced with.  In spite of his faults, he served his Country to the best of his ability.  He has lived his life as a model citizen and therefore asks for clemency.  In support of his request, a character reference statement was submitted.  The applicant’s complete submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than the one he received.  After reviewing the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, we do not find the characterization of his discharge unduly harsh for the numerous offenses committed.  Although applicant’s age and immaturity may have been contributing factors to his lack of good judgment, they do not, in our opinion, excuse his misconduct.  Additionally, other than his own assertions, the applicant provided no documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good citizenship in the community since his discharge.  In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in the form of an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge at this time.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 13 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. 02-03696:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from Applicant and the DAV, undated.