RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01465
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The true reasons for the discharge were unjust.  He had impregnated a young girl and the Air Force did not want to have to deal with the situation.  So, it was best for them for him to be discharged.  This was an era of racial discrimination.

Applicant did not provide any documents in support of his appeal other than a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 January 1952 in the grade of private for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman second class (A2C) (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 20 December 1952.  The applicant successfully completed basic and technical training, during which period, his character and efficiency were rated excellent.  He was assigned to duties as a communications specialist on or about 5 September 1952.

On 9 April 1953, the applicant was demoted for failure to repair and for substandard efficiency and conduct.  Due to an administrative error, this demotion was subsequently revoked.

On 26 June 1953, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the applicant under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for offering a false document to avoid duty on or about 24 June 1953.  The applicant was demoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C) (E-2).

On 3 August 1953, while at an off-base tavern, the applicant was involved in disturbances in that bar and refused to obey the order of civil police that he depart from the scene of the disturbance.  For this incident, the applicant received squadron punishment in the form of two weeks of extra duty.

On 26 August 1953, pursuant to his plea of guilty, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for the offense of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 21 August 1953.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 30 days and to forfeit $55.00 of one month’s pay.

On 3 September 1953, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation that the applicant meet a Board of Officers convened under the provisions of AFR 39-17 to determine the advisability of his retention in the service.  The commander stated his recommendation was based on his perception that the applicant was a habitual shirker and his commission of petty offenses.  In a separate statement, the commander indicated that he and the first sergeant had repeatedly counseled the applicant for his attire, conduct, and job performance.  On 6 October 1953, the applicant was advised that he was to appear before a Board of Officers on 12 October 1953.  The applicant was advised of his rights and of the names of the witnesses called by the board.  In a first indorsement, the applicant indicated he did not desire counsel during the board’s proceedings and did not desire witnessed to appear in his behalf.

In the meantime, on or about 24 September 1953, applicant was apprehended by the Air Police for a Uniform Violation.  On 29 September 1953, pursuant to the imposition of nonjudicial punishment for this offense, the applicant was demoted to the grade of airman basic.

On 12 October 1953, a Board of Officers was convened under the provisions of AFR 39-17 to consider the case.  The applicant appeared before the board, without counsel.  After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the board found the applicant gave evidence and traits of character that rendered his retention in the service undesirable.  The board recommended he be discharged from the service because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

On 19 October 1953, pursuant to his plea of guilty, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for the offense of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 14 October 1953.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 30 days and to forfeit $55.00 of his pay.

On 29 October 1953, the discharge authority approved the separation recommended by the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge.  Applicant was discharged on 17 November 1953 under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He served 1 year, 8 months and 13 days on active duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 16 June 2004, the applicant was invited to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.  On 1 July 2004, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review in comment.  The foregoing letters are at Exhibit E.

In response to the 16 June 2004 letter, the applicant provided a letter and a list of references.  Applicant’s response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force office adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant’s discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered applicant’s overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we 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 this application in Executive Session on 25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04, Post Service
				Letter dated 16 Jun 04, and FBI Letter, dated
				1 Jul 04.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jun 04.