RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  03-00277
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In the year 1952, he made the mistake of associating with fellow servicemen who were bad company.  He was with them during the commission of a crime.  He loves his country and flies a flag daily on his property, his home.  His discharge has bothered him for years ‑‑ he is now 71.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a character reference and DD Form 293.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1950.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-3) on 1 April 1952.  He received character and efficiency ratings of “excellent” on 12 February 1950, 8 November 1950, 19 June 1951, and 4 December 1951  On 8 October 1952, his character was rated as “poor” and his efficiency was rated “unsatisfactory.”

The applicant was convicted by the Superior Court of the State of California on 11 July 1952 for grand theft, auto.  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation for 3 years for committing a felony.  On 8 October 1952, his commander recommended he be discharged with an undesirable discharge.  Prior to discharge, the applicant was interviewed by his section head and squadron commander.  They stated he was an unsatisfactory airman in all respects.  They further stated since his civil court conviction, his attitude towards his work and responsibilities was intolerable.  His work had deteriorated to a point it was necessary to relieve him of his duties.  Probation and rehabilitation were not recommended.  The Discharge Authority approved the discharge and he was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-22.  He had served 2 years and 2 months on active duty.  Time lost was 23 days due to civil confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report that is attached at Exhibit C.  The information contained in the report pertains solely to the conviction which led to the applicant’s separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation under which it was effected.  We have noted the statements provided by the applicant’s son-in-law in support of his appeal.  While these statements allude to a successful post-service adjustment by the applicant, without more expansive evidence of good citizenship subsequent to his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request for recharacterization of his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Feb 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter of Support, dated 20 Mar 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Feb 03.

					
					Panel Chair