RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03190
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should be upgraded because he was not guilty of the charges against him.

Upon the advice of his counsel, he agreed to the discharge with the understanding the charges would later be dropped and he would receive an honorable discharge; however, this never occurred.  In addition, he chose to accept the discharge, rather than make the small girls appear before the hearing.  He simply wants his name cleared of the wrongful allegations against him.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 March 1956.  On 1 December 1964, he was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for an undesirable discharge for unfitness - sexual perversion.  The commander stated the reason for the proposed discharge was the applicant’s indecent act with a child, as reported to him by the Air Police and Office of Special Investigation (OSI).  He requested a board hearing.  The board concluded that on 22, 26, and 28 October 1964, applicant did commit indecent acts with two female children, ages 3 and 5, and recommended his undesirable discharge for unfitness.  The discharge authority approved the recommended discharge action and he received an undesirable discharge on 29 March 1965 for unfitness - sexual perversion.  He completed a total of 9 years and 23 days of active service.  He was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of discharge.

On 12 June 1968, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  The AFDRB found the applicant was properly discharged and the type of discharge was proper and equitable.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and recommends the application be denied.  The discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. 

The AFPC/DPPRSP 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 31 October 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, we note the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate his separation was inappropriate.  There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant recommending the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service and the egregiousness of the events precipitating the discharge, and do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-03190 in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.