RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03120 INDEX CODE:	110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. In addition, his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect his race as Caucasian instead of Negroid.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would like an upgrade of his discharge so he could receive Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 September 1952, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1), following his service in the Army National Guard from 20 June 1950 to 16 September 1952. He was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) effective 1 March 1953. On 23 April 1953, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for making himself absent from his place of duty on 16 April 1953. Upon accepting the non-judicial punishment versus a trial by court- martial and waiving his right to submit a statement in his own behalf, the applicant was demoted to the grade of airman basic. On 19 May 1953, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 86, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for making himself absent from his organization, without proper authority, from on or about 30 April 1953 to on or about 18 May 1953. The applicant pled guilty to the charge and was subsequently found guilty by summary court-martial on 22 May 1953. The punishment adjudged was confinement at hard labor for 15 days and forfeiture of $55 pay.

The applicant was again promoted to the grade of airman third class effective 29 October 1953. On 11 March 1954, the applicant

received Article 15, UCMJ punishment for failure to obey a lawful order. After waiving his right to a trial by court-martial and to submit a statement in his own behalf, the applicant was demoted to airman basic and reprimanded by his commander.  On
30 June 1954, the applicant was charged with two specifications of Article 86, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, without proper authority and failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, without proper authority, on or about 26 June 1954. He pled guilty to the charges and was subsequently found guilty by summary court- martial on 3 July 1954. The punishment adjudged was confinement at hard labor for 15 days and forfeiture of $34 pay. On 14 July 1955, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, without proper authority, on or about 14 July 1955. He pled guilty and was subsequently found guilty by summary court-martial on 15 July 1955. Punishment adjudged was confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $40 pay.

On 26 July 1955, his commander initiated action to have the applicant appear before a board to determine his retention in or discharge from the Air Force under the unfitness category of Air Force Regulation 39-17. The applicant acknowledged receipt of his commander’s intentions and waived his entitlement to appear before the board and requested discharge without benefit of board proceedings. The applicant acknowledged that if his discharge was approved, his separation from the Air Force may be under conditions other than honorable, that he may receive an undesirable discharge, and that it may deprive him of rights as a veteran. The applicant was referred for evaluation by a medical board prior to meeting an administrative board for discharge, The Medical Board Report, dated 27 July 1955, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with inadequate personality with passive aggressive reaction; however, the diagnosed conditions were not considered conditions warranting separation. On 9 August 1955, the wing adjutant recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be accepted and that he be discharged as a habitual shirker under the provisions of AFR 39-17 and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 29 August 1955, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.   On
26 September 1955, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable characterization of service. He served 2 years, 2 months, and 27 days on active duty with 74 days of lost time.

On 14 March 2008, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).

The applicant responded with a personal statement and two letters of character reference (Exhibit D).

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.

On 8 October 2008, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, to change his race from Negroid to Caucasian.

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. We note the Air Force has already administratively corrected the applicant’s race from Negroid to Caucasian; therefore, we will only address his request for upgrading his characterization of discharge to honorable. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 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 25 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The	following	documentary	evidence	was	considered	for	AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03120:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 08, w/atch. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Nov 08, w/atch. Exhibit D.	Applicant’s Reply, dated 18 Nov 08, w/atchs.

Panel Chair