RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00815
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not in need of any government assistance.  He is very displeased with himself for the way he served his country and he would like to have a more desirable discharge.

Applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, a copy of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, a copy of his enlistment record, and a copy of his Airman Military Record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 23 August 1965 in the grade of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C) on 17 December 1965.

On 4 May 1967, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for misconduct.  The commander was recommending applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge based on the following:  (1) On 26 January 1967, applicant was convicted in the Magistrate court of Jackson County, Missouri for malicious destruction of property and sentenced to 365 days in the County Jail and given a bench parole for two years.  On 1 March 1967, he was demoted to the grade of airman basic.  (2) On 24 April 1967, in Cass County Court, , Missouri, applicant entered a plea of guilty to burglary and larceny.  The court sentenced him to two years in prison for each offense, with terms to run consecutively, and placed him on parole for five years.  After consulting with legal counsel, applicant waived his rights to a hearing before an administrative discharge board.  He also indicated he was not submitting statements in his own behalf and understood if the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge, the discharge authority would also determine the type of discharge he received.  The base legal services reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5 June 1967 under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program (discharge for misconduct because of civil court disposition), with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He had served one year, nine months and six days on active duty.  He had four days of time lost due to civil confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant.  Other than the infraction leading to his separation, the report contained no further information pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he got married a short time after his release.  He was blessed with two sons.  He had several jobs before he started working for Ford Motor in 1973; of all the jobs, Ford Motor was definitely the most rewarding.  Unfortunately, his wife divorced him in 1981.  Through all of this, he gained Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.  He was blessed with a second wife and a very nice home.

His wife submitted a statement saying she did not know the applicant in the early years, but she knows who he is today and for the past 18 years that they have been married.  She knows of his past life, but today he is a changed man.  He is a man who serves the Lord, a man who can be trusted, a man of integrity, a good father and provider.  Her husband just retired from Ford Motor, a company of which he served for 30 years.  She is a woman who is proud to be called his wife.  She is truly blessed and thank God that He put him in her life.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that the information in his discharge case file was erroneous, his service characterization was contrary to the governing regulation then in effect, or his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have noted the assertions of the applicant and his wife that he has made a successful post service adjustment.  However, in view of the seriousness of the offenses that led to the applicant’s separation and, given the length of time since his separation, in the absence of more expansive documentary evidence substantiating these claims, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.  Based on the above, the applicant’s 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR BC-2004-00815:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Apr 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04 and AFBCMR
				Letter dated 27 Apr 04.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 28 May 04, w/atch.