RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00302
		INDEX CODE 106.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1954 “dishonorable” discharge be changed to undesirable. [Note: The applicant’s discharge is characterized as undesirable on his DD Form 214.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Veterans’ hospital shows him as being dishonorably discharged, which is not the case. His undesirable discharge keeps him eligible for veteran’s treatment. He was traumatized when he saw his best friend killed by an air policeman for going out of the gate without a pass. He would be happy to be upgraded to “undesirable under honorable conditions.”

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the applicant’s available military personnel records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan 51 and was assigned to the 6351st Medical Squadron at Naha Air Base.

On 20 Mar 52, he was given a neuropsychiatric exam and diagnosed as having an inadequate personality and life-long history of maladjustment. The condition was determined to be not amenable to psychiatric treatment, disciplinary action or rehabilitation. The psychiatrist strongly recommended separation for his defective character. 

On 21 Mar 52, he was convicted by summary courts-martial (SCM) for willfully disobeying a lawful order to remove an unauthorized sign over the barracks entrance. He was restricted to base for two weeks and forfeited $25. 

On 16 Jun 52, the detachment commander recommended to the squadron commander that the applicant be administratively discharged.

On 8 Jul 52, the applicant was charged with violating an order and indecent assault on 30 Jun 52, and breaking restriction on 3 Jul 52. As a result, he was given a psychiatric evaluation on 9 Jul 52. No disability or defect warranting disability discharge was found and administrative discharge was again recommended.

On 21 Jul 52, the squadron commander advised the wing commander that rehabilitation attempts had proven unsatisfactory and recommended the applicant meet a board of officers to ascertain whether he should be retained. In the letter, the commander also indicated the applicant had been given an Article 15 for threatening and disrespecting the air police at Yontan Air Base on 30 May 52, resulting in restriction to base for two weeks.

On 28 Jul 52, the applicant received an Article 15 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from duty on 26 Jul 52. The applicant submitted nothing in his behalf and was subsequently reduced from airman third class to airman basic. The applicant did not appeal but did request transfer to another unit.

On 19 Sep 52, the applicant requested to see a psychiatrist because of worry and his inability to get along wherever he may be. The applicant was found not to be psychotic and his episodes of nervousness and anxiety did not constitute a disqualifying neurosis. The applicant indicated he was disposed to get in trouble and that he wanted to get out of the service. Diagnosis was immaturity with aggressive reaction. 

On 1 Oct 52, the applicant pled and was found guilty by SCM for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 23 and 24 Sep 52. He was confined to hard labor for 30 days and forfeited $54.00.

On 13 Nov 52, the applicant requested reassignment to another unit at either Guam or Okinawa so he could rehabilitate himself. On 25 Nov 52, he was reassigned to another group within the command. Apparently, however, he was reassigned again and, on 12 May 53, his squadron requested his transfer to the rehabilitation squadron because of his unresponsiveness to repeated counseling, correction and discipline. 

At some point, the applicant ultimately was assigned to the 516th Material Squadron at Knoxville, TN. On 21 Dec 53, he received an Article 15 for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 16 Dec 53. He was reduced from airman third class to airman basic. The applicant did not appeal.

On 18 Jan 54, he was restricted to base for two weeks for failing to repair on that date. However, on 23 Jan 54, he broke restriction and was found guilty by SCM on 26 Jan 54 for this offense. He was confined to hard labor for 15 days and forfeited $40.00.

Affidavits dated 14-18 May 54 from the first sergeant, the squadron adjutant, supervisors and others in the 516th Material Squadron attest to the applicant’s incorrigible behavior, including going AWOL repeatedly, being indebted, disrupting squadron morale and behavior, disobeying orders, being late for work, etc.

On 18 May 54, the commander recommended the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged prior to the termination of his enlistment. On 19 May 54, after consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before a discharge board and requested discharge with the understanding that it could be under conditions other than honorable.  The applicant’s request was accepted.

However, on 20 Jun 54, the applicant again went AWOL from 10 Jun to around 17 Jun 54. No further information is available. 

The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) on 16 Jul 54 with an undesirable characterization (equivalent to an under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge). He served 3 years, 2 months and 14 days of active service. He had 92 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes that, based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the directives in effect at the time. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. In accordance with AFR 39-33, 3 Jun 53, an “undesirable” discharge is an appropriate characterization of service equivalent to a UOTHC discharge. The applicant has not submitted any new evidence or facts warranting an upgrade; therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant changing the applicant’s discharge. The applicant has asked that his “dishonorable” discharge be changed to undesirable. However, the applicant was, in fact, given an undesirable discharge in 1954. This is what is reflected in his records and on his DD Form 214. An undesirable discharge is equivalent to today’s characterization of under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC). A veteran may qualify for some DVA benefits unless issued a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge by a general courts-martial; however, determining whether or not this applicant is eligible for any DVA benefits is beyond the scope of this Board. The applicant needs to contact the DVA as it is the agency responsible for determining his eligibility for any of their programs. Therefore, since the applicant’s records already appear to reflect the kind of discharge characterization he seems to be asking for, no correction by this Board is necessary. On the other hand, if the applicant is actually requesting an upgraded discharge, he has provided no evidence showing that his own pattern of repeated misconduct justified any other characterization than what he received.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_____________________________________________________________

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 30 July 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00302 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated (received 28 Jan 03).
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 03.

                                   Panel Chair