RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00146
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

This application for correction of the records of APPLICANT was submitted by his daughter.

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her father recently had a stroke and his speech is impaired.  He is unable to receive treatment at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital because of the type of discharge he received.

The applicant does not know much about her father’s life because her parents divorced when she was young.  She is aware that he received his high school diploma in 1975; that he coached a little league baseball team in 1980; and, that he received an award for an Occupational Training Course in 1994.  Her father was a truck driver until he retired.  While retired and up until his stroke in May 02, he traveled throughout the United States helping others.

In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former member contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jun 51 for a period of four years.

On 30 Mar 56, the former member received notification that his commander was recommending he appear before a board of officers to determine his fitness for continued service.  The reasons for this action are as follows:

	- Five (5) Article 15s:

(1) Failure to repair on 31 May 54 and 4 Jun 54 - punishment consisting of two hours of extra duty for 14 days.

(2) Failure to repair for scheduled formation on 18 Sep 54 - punishment consisting of a reduction in grade from airman third class to airman basic, with an effective date of rank of 24 Sep 54.

(3) Failure to repair on 1 Dec 55 - punishment consisting of two hours of extra duty for 14 days.

(4) Unauthorized pass on 27 Feb 56 - punishment consisting of two hours of extra duty for 14 days.

(5) Dereliction in the performance of duty on 7 Mar 56 - punishment consisting of two hours of extra duty for 14 days.

	- Three (3) Court-Martial convictions:

(1) Summary Court-Martial for failure to obey a lawful order on 1 Feb 52, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; and, for being absent without leave AWOL during the period 1-5 Feb 52, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  On 15 Feb 52, the former member was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days, forfeiture of $25.00 and a reduction in grade from private first class to private.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 18 Feb 52.

(2) Special Court-Martial for being AWOL during the period of 6 Oct 52 - 16 Apr 53, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  On 21 May 53, the former member was sentenced to a reduction in grade from airman third class to airman basic, confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $25.00 for six months.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 25 May 53.

(3) Special Court-Martial for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer on 13 Mar 55, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; and, for making a false official statement on 12 Mar 55, in violation of Article 107.  On 29 Apr 55, the former member was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 for like period.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority on 2 May 55.  By Special Court-Martial Order Number 111, dated 13 Jul 55, the unexecuted portion of the confinement and forfeiture sentence was suspended for six months, at which time, unless the suspension was vacated, was to be remitted without further action.

On 12 Apr 56, the former member called his commander and stated he was having difficulty obtaining money to post bail after being arrested by civil authorities on a bastardy charge.

The Board of Officers convened on 13 Apr 56 at Chanute AFB, IL.  Since the former member was confined by civil authorities and unable to be present at this hearing, he was represented by legal counsel.  After considering the evidence and testimony, the board found that the former member had repeatedly committed offenses against the UCMJ; that he repeatedly shirked duties as a member of the military service; that repeated attempts at rehabilitation had failed because of the former member’s apathetic and indifferent attitude; and, that further attempts at rehabilitation would not appear justifiable in light of his past conduct and demonstrated attitude toward his service obligations.  In view of the above findings, the board recommended that the former member be discharged with an undesirable discharge for unfitness.  The base legal office reviewed the findings of the board and determined it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The former member received an undesirable discharge on 4 May 56 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (unfitness).  He had completed a total of 3 years, 5 months and 15 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic at the time of discharge.  The former member had a total of 252 days of lost time.

The former member’s requests for upgrade of his discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 27 Aug 57 and 17 Oct 61.  His requests for a Waiver of Discharge for Enlistment in the Air Force was denied by the Air Force Personnel Board on 19 May 58 and 17 Oct 61.

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.  Based upon the documentation in the former member’s file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of his discharge.  DPPRS is not unsympathetic to the former member’s situation and needs; however, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and response.  A copy of the FBI Identification Record was forwarded to applicant on 16 Apr 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  We thoroughly reviewed the former member’s record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge in 1956.  In this respect, we note that due to the former member’s misconduct, a Board of Officers convened to investigate the pertinent facts and circumstances to determine whether the former member should be discharged.  After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the separation characterization received by the former member should be changed.  We also find insufficient evidence of error or injustice in this case warranting an upgrade of the discharge on the basis of clemency.  In this regard, we considered the former member’s overall quality of service and the events which precipitated the discharge and the limited information concerning his activities since leaving the service.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  While we are not unsympathetic toward the former member and his family, in view of the above, we find no basis on which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00146.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03, and 
               AFBCMR, dated 16 Apr 03.