RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00254
					INDEX CODE:  110.00
					COUNSEL:  None

					HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He understands the discharge he received in 1961.  He was young, stupid and immature.  He served his time for the acts he did while in the military.  He has lived as a model citizen since the incident.  He has raised eight children and runs a successful business.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 11 June 1956 as an airman basic for a period of four years.  He was honorably discharged on 9 August 1958 and reenlisted on 10 August 1958 for a period of six years.

On 2 February 1961, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for discharge for being found guilty of burglary and sentenced to two years confinement in the Texas State Penitentiary.  In the recommendation for discharge, the commander cited the following derogatory information:

	a.	21 September 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

	b.	23 September 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

	c.	7 November 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

	d.	7 January 1960, Reckless Driving, 28 hours extra duty.

	e.	25 March 1960, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

	f.	23 May 1960, theft of government property, summary court-martial, reduced to Airman Basic (AB), forfeiture of $40 and hard labor for 30 days.

	g.	3 June 1960, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

	h.	5 November 1960, Letter of Indebtedness, in hands of civilian authorities.

	i.	12 January 1961, driving with expired driver’s license, in hands of civilian authorities.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to a Board hearing; to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him; and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 27 February 1961, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a board hearing and to submit a statement in his behalf.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

On 16 June 1961, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-22 Discharge of Airman for Misconduct Because of Civil Court Disposition (conviction by civil court), with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He served 4 years, 4 months and 18 days of active service and had 228 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant’s file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  
Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 April 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

On 16 April 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation on his activities since leaving military service.  The applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

On 14 May 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the investigative report for his review and comment.  The applicant did not respond (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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears the processing and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, in view of his misconduct while he was on active duty and the apparent continued acts of misconduct after leaving active duty, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to a request to provide documentation regarding his post-service activities.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00254 in Executive Session on 14 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Mar 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 2 Apr 04.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Apr 04.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 04.

				Panel Chair