RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02356
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  XXXX

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable and his grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) be reinstated.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His service records show no convictions, no Article 15s and the investigation by the Judge Advocate reflected no intent to defraud.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted unsigned copies of what appears to be extracts of his discharge correspondence.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 May 54, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four years.  He was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve (AFR) on 19 Dec 1957.  He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jan 1958, for a period of six years in the grade of airman first class.

On 5 Oct 59, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-17.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were based on an established pattern of financial irresponsibility and negligence and evidence of habits and traits of immoral and anti-social trends.  Between 20 May 1959 and 15 Jun 59, the applicant cashed 18 checks totaling $900 for which he had no funds.

AF Form 1226, Record of Previous Convictions and Time Lost, reflects applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 Dec 58 to 30 Dec 58, and then from 2 Jan 59 until 9 Jan 59.  He was apprehended by military authorities and returned to military control on 10 Jan 59.  He was in confinement for 17 days,        10–17 Jan 59.  Applicant was again AWOL on or about 17-18 Jun 59.  
On 5 Oct 59, after consulting with counsel, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings and did not submit any statements in his own behalf.  He further acknowledged that he understood that if his application was approved, that his separation could be under conditions other than honorable and that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a veteran under both federal and state legislation.

On 2 Nov 59, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file to be legally sufficient to support a discharge for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.  On 17 Nov 59, the discharge authority approved the discharge for unfitness and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258AF).

On 30 Nov 59, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-17, with service characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).  He was credited with 4 years, 3 months and 29 days of active duty service (excludes 32 days of lost time due to three periods of AWOL and confinement).  

Applicant’s DD Form 214 also reflects that he was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award and the National Defense Service Medal.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB found that the applicant’s records did not contain any information or documentation regarding promotion or demotion.  They state that in the absence of any documentation to the contrary, they have no choice but to assume that he was discharged in the correct grade.  Based on the lack of supporting documentation, they recommended that the applicant’s request to correct his grade be denied.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the available record and applicant's submission, we find that the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing directives and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We noted the applicant’s request to have the grade of staff sergeant reinstated; however, the staff judge advocate’s review, dated 5 November 1959, indicated that during the processing of the applicant’s discharge they determined the applicant’s promotion to staff sergeant was never accomplished nor was he paid as a staff sergeant.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02356 in Executive Session on 24 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 02, with atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC DPPRS, dated 8 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Aug 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.