RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03899
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Veteran’s Administration (VA) told him that an upgrade to honorable could be obtained by request.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 January 1957.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of A/3C (E-2) with a date of rank of 17 July 1958.

On 27 May 1958, applicant violated regulations by improper wearing of the fatigue uniform.  His pass privileges were revoked for a two-week period.  Applicant received an Article 15 on 11 June 1958 for entering Mexico without valid leave orders and was reduced in grade to Airman Basic (AB/E-1).

Applicant received notification on 2 October 1958 that he was being recommended for discharge due to unsuitability.  He waived his right to submit a rebuttal to the discharge authority and concurred with the recommendation of his commander.  He received a general discharge with service characterization of under honorable conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment.  He had served a total of 1 year, 8 months and 13 days (18 days of lost time), and was serving in the grade of A/3C at the time of discharge. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.  Nor did the applicant identify any errors or injustices that may have occurred during the processing of his discharge.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that it was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  

DPPRS’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 April 2003 for review and comment within 30 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 error or injustice.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of 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 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.

4.	Because the applicant has provided no documentation concerning post-service conduct, the Board finds nothing to warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.  However, should he provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new evidence.  We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 BC-2002-03899 in Executive Session on 5 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.