RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01143
INDEX CODE:  110.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His health is deteriorating and he needs to have veteran benefits made available to him.  The records of the incidents that led to his discharge have no proof of facts and contain no detailed statements from witnesses.  

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement, a copy of DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, and a copy of AF Form 7, Airman Military Record.  A copy of the applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 March 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  After completion of basic military training, the applicant was trained as an Air Policeman.  The applicant was promoted to the grade of airman third class effective and with a date of rank of 5 June 1956.  On 20 March 1957, the applicant’s career field was changed to Supply Helper.  His records do not contain an Airman Performance Report.

On 18 April 1957, the applicant received a verbal reprimand for using phonograph records belonging to another airman without his permission.  On 1 August 1957, the applicant failed a barracks inspection and received two hours of extra training per day for two weeks.  On 5 August 1957, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2 August 1957.  He received two hours extra duty per day for two weeks.  On 8 August 1957, the applicant was given summary court-martial for violating Article 92, UCMJ, in that he left his place of duty without getting permission from his squadron commander as previously instructed.  He was found guilty and fined thirty-five dollars.  On 15 August 1957, the applicant was given a second summary court-martial for violating Article 86, UCMJ, in that he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 12 and 14 August 1957.  He was found guilty and confined to hard labor for thirty days, reduced to the grade of airman basic, and fined fifty-five dollars.  On 17 August 1957, the applicant, while serving his sentence in confinement, violated prison regulations by leaving his assigned place of duty, returning to the barracks, and threatening another airman who had been a witness against him.

On 21 August 1957, upon a request by his commander, the applicant received a physical and mental evaluation.  The examining physician’s opinion was that the applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong and had no physical or mental abnormalities which would warrant discharge under AFM 35-4.  On 23 August 1957, his commander recommended the applicant be separated for conduct that reflected unfavorably upon the Air Force.  His commander stated that attempts to rehabilitate the applicant, by counseling him on several occasions, did not seem to change the applicant’s attitude.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived his right to present matters to a board.  He further acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under conditions other than honorable and receive an undesirable discharge that could deprive him of any rights to receive veterans’ benefits in the future.    On 30 August 1957, the base and wing commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an undesirable discharge.  The discharge authority approved the discharge on 9 September 1957 and ordered an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) characterization without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged effective 16 September 1957 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 with a UOTHC characterization of service.  He had served one year, five months, and seven days on active duty.  His time lost was 25 days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

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:

The applicant claims there are several deficiencies in his military personnel records that contribute to an error or injustice.  The applicant’s review is at Exhibit E.  

On 31 October 2003, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities.  The applicant provided documentation of his personal achievements along with several character references.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.  

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We note the letter of contentions submitted by the applicant; however, we find no persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  It is our opinion that the characterization of discharge 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 given the seriousness and multiplicity of his infractions against the good order and discipline of the service.  Should the applicant base a request for relief on clemency and provide a more expansive account of his post service accomplishments, attesting to his successful post-service rehabilitation, we would be willing to reconsider this case.  In absence of such a request and evidence, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.  

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

Mr. XXXXX and Mr. XXXXXX voted to deny the application.  XXXXX voted to grant the applicant’s request but elected not to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01143:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 8 Nov 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01143

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 16 September 1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).

							
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AFBCMR: BC-2003-01143

	After considering the evidence available for my review, I agree with the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded should be granted.  

	While the applicant’s UOTHC discharge may have been appropriate for the circumstances at the time, I note he had to live with its adverse effects for more than 46 years.  Since it would serve no useful purpose to the Air Force or to society in general to continue the nature of his discharge at this late date and since it is apparent that he had been a responsible citizen following his separation, it is my decision that the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) on the basis of clemency.

							
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency