RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04056
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The charges he was convicted of, which led to his military discharge, were civilian in nature.

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement and a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.  A copy of the applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 January 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  The applicant was trained in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 232X0, Still Photography.  He was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2), effective and with a date of rank of 3 April 1956.  The applicant received excellent ratings in character and efficiency on two occasions for the period 11 January 1956 through 3 April 1956.

On 21 September 1956, the Denver District Court of --- convicted the applicant of burglary.  The applicant pled guilty as charged.  On 1 November 1956, the applicant was sentenced to five years’ probation.  On 19 November 1956, the squadron adjutant requested the applicant’s discharge in accordance to Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-22 (conviction by civil court) and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge because of the felony conviction.  On 26 November 1956, the discharge authority approved the discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge effective 5 December 1956.  The applicant had served 9 months, and 5 days on active duty.  His time lost was 50 days due to civil confinement.

The applicant made application to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) on 23 February 1962, requesting his discharge be upgraded to general.  The DRB denied his request on 25 April 1962.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any 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 he received.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report were forwarded to the applicant on 7 March 2003 and 3 April 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D and F).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

The applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit G).  His reply, two character reference letters, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  We have noted the supportive statements provided in the applicant’s behalf.  In our opinion, the cited statements are not of a sufficient quality or quantity to support approval of the requested relief based on clemency in view of the short period of time he served on active duty and the excessive amount of time lost to the government.  Accordingly, in view of the above and in the absence of more expansive evidence showing the applicant has maintained the standards of good citizenship over an extended period of time, his request 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 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-04056 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 2003, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Mar 2003.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 2003.
	Exhibit E.  FBI Report ----, dated 28 Mar 2003.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Apr 2003.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 2003.
	Exhibit H.  Character References, dated 1 and 7 Apr 2003.