RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00951
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions on his application.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Apr 51, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of private.

On 22 May 51, the applicant was medically examined with the following findings:

		He was mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

		He had no mental or physical condition sufficient to warrant discharge for medical reasons.

		He had a condition which, in the medical doctor’s opinion, rendered him unsuitable for military service within the intent of AFR 39‑16, namely:  Lack of physical stamina by which he was unlikely to render effective service, upon returning to duty, by reason of the likelihood of early recurrence of incapacitating back symptoms from uncontrollable causes resulting from military service, but which were not likely to recur upon return to civilian life.  Emotional instability characterized by excitable and ineffective reactions when confronted with mild stress, undependable judgement, and fluctuating emotional attitudes in his relationships with other people.  He appeared to be predisposed to this type of behavior reaction by early parental influence that were unstable, social relationships marked by impaired recognition of attainments, and a history of impaired health involving failure to accept irremedial defect.  During the examination, it became apparent that he sustained an impairment of suppressive capacity, and as a result, he tended to avoid all stress.  He was not likely to render effective military service at that time.  The medical doctor recommended that he be considered for appearance before a Board of Officers (BO) with a view toward his separation from the Air Force.

On 2 Jun 51, applicant’s commander recommended he appear before a BO to determine whether or not he was unsuitable for further retention in the Air Force.  The following information was furnished to substantiate this recommendation:  The applicant claimed that he could only march in formation for approximately three consecutive blocks without severe back pains which forced him to leave the formation.  He stated that he sleeps poorly, is unable to perform exercises and rough riding trucks cause him unusual back pains.  Because all attempts to rehabilitate him proved futile, it was recommended that he be discharged from the military service.  He was interviewed several times in an effort to make a satisfactory airman of him.  He stated that he would like to stay in the Air Force if he could get medical treatment resulting in relief from his back pains but that he was unable to perform his assigned duties. He was emphatic when he stated his willingness to perform as desired and equally positive that the resultant pain was too great to bear.

On 7 Jun 51, the applicant appeared before a BO investigating whether or not he was inapt or unsuitable for further retention in the military.  The applicant testified that the way things stand now, he has to be discharged; he just cannot do the training unless he has something done.  To the best of his knowledge and belief, all the evidence that has been presented in his case is true and correct.  He hurt his back and got paid by insurance.  He did not tell the doctor that he had a back injury because the doctor did not ask him.  He told the doctor about his foot.  A boulder fell on his foot and cut a tendon in two.  He fell off a wall and injured his back.  It gave him trouble before he came in the service.

The BO found the applicant was unsuitable for further military service because of lack of physical stamina and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force because of unsuitability with a general discharge.

On 20 Jun 51, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39‑10 (Unsuitability) with a general discharge in the grade of private.  He was credited with 2 months and 10 days of total active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  If the applicant were discharged under today’s rules, he would receive an uncharacterized entry level separation.  He could even receive a fraudulent entry for withholding his medical history.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends his records remain the same and the request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 3 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  In addition, he was requested to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (see Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 careful consideration of the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the discharge action was in error or unjust.  The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for applicant’s discharge, i.e., lack of physical stamina and the unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate him.  We note that under today’s standards, he would have received an uncharacterized entry level separation.  Further, he could have received a fraudulent entry for withholding his medical history.  Therefore, in our opinion, responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s involuntary separation, and we did not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated at the time of his discharge.  Based on a review of the limited post-service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 13 November 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Vice Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 May 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 01.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair