RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03863
INDEX CODE:  110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 June 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was an ignorant 18-year old who suffered racial prejudice because he was Hispanic.  

The applicant provided no evidence in support of his appeal.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 July 1960, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was trained as an Apprentice Air Policeman.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) with a date of rank of 20 October 1960.  

On 27 March 1961, the applicant was charged with being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 17 March 1961 to 20 March 1961.  The applicant was tried by Summary Court-Martial and pled guilty to the charges of being absent from his organization without proper authority on or about 17 March 1961, and remaining so absent until on or about 21 March 1961.  The Court-Martial found the applicant guilty of the charges and imposed punishment of confinement at hard labor for 21 days, reduction in grade to airman basic, and forfeiture of $25.  

Following his confinement, the applicant was given a three-day pass to prepare his uniforms and equipment for duty and to visit his family.  He failed to report back to duty from his pass at the time prescribed.  

On 21 April 1961, the applicant was evaluated by the Psychiatric Clinic after attempting suicide.  The psychiatric evaluation determined the applicant to have a character behavior disorder characterized by immaturity reaction emotional instability.  The physician’s recommendation was for the applicant’s administrative separation from the service under provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10.  

On 3 May 1961, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge the applicant and recommended he be required to appear before an Evaluation Officer to determine his eligibility to be retained in the military service.  On 8 May 1961, the Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant and advised him of his rights to submit a rebuttal or statements in his own behalf.  The applicant waived his right to submit either.  On 9 May 1961, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient.  On 12 May 1961, the Discharge Authority approved and ordered the applicant be discharged for unsuitability under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Section B, with a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged effective 17 May 1961 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  He had served nine months and two days on active duty.  He had 22 days’ lost time.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRSP states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 January 2005, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no response.  On 2 February 2005, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The characterization of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that the characterization of his discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03863 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 04.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 05.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 05.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 2 Feb 05.