RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01494
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made a mistake that has followed him for over 23 years.  His race presented some trying times during his military service.  He has contributed to his country and regrets his mistake.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of letters from members of congress; a copy of his resume; letters of character reference from his former employers; certificates of appreciation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of service under review, applicant enlisted in the US Army on 28 Jan 46, and on 10 Jan 48, he transferred to the Air Force.  He was honorably discharged on 4 Feb 49.  He was credited with 2 years and 29 days of active service [excludes 8 days of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL)].

On 17 May 49, he enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve Corps as a sergeant for three years, with a 12-month extension.  Applicant was AWOL from 31 Dec 50 - 1 Jan 51.  On 29 May 51, he was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being AWOL from on or about 18 May 51 until 21 May 51.  He was sentenced to reduction in grade to airman basic (suspended) and forfeiture of $58.  On 15 Dec 52, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman first class.

On 16 Dec 52, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for 3 years in the grade of airman first class.  During this time, he was promoted to grade of staff sergeant with a DOR of 1 Dec 54 and was honorably discharged on 13 Jan 55.  
He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Jan 55 for a period of four years.  

On 3 Jul 56, applicant was convicted by Special Court Martial for being AWOL from o/a 4 Dec 55 until o/a 18 Jun 56.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for six months and forfeiture of $44 for six months and reduction in grade to airman basic.

After completing 45 days of the confinement, he went AWOL and remained absent until the initiation of his discharge processing (10 Jul 74).

On 10 Jul 74, the group commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for unfitness.  The specific reason for the proposed action was desertion, in that, applicant was AWOL from 3 Jan 57 until he was dropped from the rolls on 1 Feb 57.

On 13 Jul 74, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and that military counsel was available to him.  On 16 Jul 74, he waived his right to appear before an administrative discharge board and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  He further acknowledged that he understood that if his application was approved, his separation could be under conditions other than honorable and that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of veterans’ benefits.  On 2 Aug 74, the group Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient.

On 23 Aug 74, the Numbered Air Force Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient to support discharge for misconduct as an absentee or deserter.  In addition, based on the very nature of the offense, i.e., an unauthorized absence of some 18 years, probation and rehabilitation were deemed unfeasible and inappropriate.  On 26 Aug 74, the Numbered AF commander approved the discharge, without P&R.

On 5 Sep 74, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions and was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  He was credited with 1 year and 10 days of active duty service during this enlistment (excludes 6800 days due to confinement, AWOL and desertion).

On 21 Oct 88, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 31 July 2003, that, on the basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended his request be denied.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and that he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Jun 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that applicant’s separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  The discharge action is supported by the evidence of record; specifically, applicant’s unauthorized absences and subsequently being dropped from the rolls and placed in deserter status for over 17 years.  After careful consideration of the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, it appears that he has been a productive member of society since his discharge.  Nevertheless, in view of the overall quality of his service during the period under review and the seriousness of the misconduct that resulted in his undesirable discharge, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge to fully honorable is warranted on the basis of clemency.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01494 in Executive Session on 6 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair