RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-00866
		INDEX CODE 106.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1956 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 18 years old and did not steal the tire chains, but he was accused of being an accomplice because he was with the person who stole.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Apr 54.

He received an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed and was reduced from airman third class to airman basic effective 20 Aug 54. He did not appeal.

On or about 28 Nov 54, the applicant and three other individuals unlawfully entered the Frontier Service Station in Denver, CO, and stole several sets of tire chains (valued less than $50.00). General Court-Martial Order (GCMO) No. 52, dated 11 Apr 55, sentenced him to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year. 

A 6 Jun 55 Admission Classification Summary noted the applicant appeared to be an impressionable, passive individual with a tendency to cling to others and, although realizing the theft was wrong, went along with the group without knowing exactly why. The applicant was not considered to represent a delinquent with premeditated criminal actions. 

GCMO No. 182, dated 18 Jul 55, suspended the execution of the BCD until the applicant’s release from confinement. 

A Classification Summary, dated 18 Aug 55, recommended clemency and restoration. On 30 Aug 55, the Correctional Classification Board (CCB) deferred restoration and clemency pending further observation, although a repeat offense was not expected. Restoration and clemency was again deferred on 3 Nov 55 because the CCB believed the applicant’s immaturity would benefit from additional time and observation. No future problems were anticipated. 

On 29 Nov 55, the CCB found the applicant had progressed and was enrolled in the jet bomber course. The CCB recommended restoration and that the BCD be suspended until the applicant’s release from confinement and six months thereafter at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action. Remission of the balance of the sentence pertaining to confinement and forfeiture was also recommended with a return to duty in full pay status.

GCMO No. 617, dated 13 Dec 55, remitted the unexecuted portions of the sentence pertaining to confinement and forfeitures and suspended the BCD until 7 Dec 56, at which time, unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted.  The applicant had been in confinement from 4 Feb 55 to 13 Dec 55.

On 8 Aug 56, the squadron commander initiated discharge action, with a general characterization, against the applicant based on his regression of performance. Apparently, the regression was not due to his job or his supervisor, but because he could not acclimate himself to service life. From Mar 56 to Aug 56, the applicant’s performance had been unacceptable and he had shown signs of emotional instability. The commander indicated the applicant could not work under any stress and in general had become useless to himself and the Air Force. The base chaplain indicated in an 8 Aug 56 memo that he had counseled the applicant for the past six months. However, the applicant was very discouraged that he could neither readjust to the Air Force nor overcome his prison record. The chaplain advised that he, the squadron commander, and others had tried unsuccessfully to resolve the applicant’s problems. 

The discharge authority approved the general discharge on 8 Aug 56.

A 23 Aug 56 medical examination diagnosed the applicant with a passive-dependency reaction, chronic, severe, minimal stress, and severe predisposition, with marked impairment. The physician also indicated these conditions existed prior to service (EPTS). The applicant was found qualified for discharge. 

An evaluation officer interviewed the applicant on 31 Aug 56 and found him to be a confused, troubled young man with a defeatist attitude. The officer concluded retention would not benefit him or the Air Force and a general discharge was recommended.

On 19 Sep 56, the applicant was discharged with a general characterization after 1 year, 6 months and 22 days of active service, and a total of 312 days of lost time.

On 28 Jan 65, the applicant filed an appeal for an upgraded discharge with the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 19 Feb 65, his request was denied. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS finds the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant submits no evidence of error and injustice and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the 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 2 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 a thorough review of the documentation pertaining to this case, we are not persuaded the applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Despite admitting he knew it was wrong, the applicant went along with his friends in stealing tire chains from the service station.  He was granted clemency and given a chance at rehabilitation through the remission of the unexecuted portions of his sentence, to include the BCD, but his performance became unacceptable.  The commander, the chaplain and others apparently tried to help the applicant, but were unsuccessful. The applicant has not shown that his general court martial and ultimate discharge were in error or unjust. Further, the applicant has provided no evidence that, following his discharge, he became a productive, respectable member of society.  Should he provide post-service information demonstrating he has been a responsible, law-abiding citizen, we would be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration. Until then, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00866 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 04.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 04
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.