AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01759 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

I  i-. 

JUN  2 4  

APPLICAN? REQUESTS THAT: 

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He is a different man than the teenager who was in the Air Force. 

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement,  letters  of  support  from  family  and  friends  and  a 
letter from a Member of Congress.  These documents are appended 
at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

b 

Applicant  contracted his  initial enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force on 9 January 1957 for a period of four years. 
On  23  April  1957,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's 
intent  to  impose  nonjudicial  punishment  (Article  15)  for 
disregarding  a  wing-base 
and  squadron  policy  by 
which  was  beyond  the  125 
driving his  automobile to 
mile  pass  radius, in violatlon  of Article  92, UCMJ  (failure to 
obey  order  or  regulation). 
Applicant  chose  nonjudicial 
punishment  under Article  15 rather than trial by  court-martial. 
The  commander, on  23 April  1957, determined that  applicant was 
guilty  of  the  offense  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a 
reduction  in  grade  from  airman  third  class  to  airman  basic. 
Applicant did not appeal the punishment. 

cant  was  tried 
On  21  May  19 
court-martial at 
for violation of 
for 7 ,days (3 - 
pled guilty to 
s'entenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 
of $55.  Only so much of the sentence as pro 
at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of 
ordered executed by the convening authority. 
On  21  May  19 
court-martial at 

before  a  summary 
Article 86, UCMJ.  He 
9 May  1957).  He was 
0 days and forfeiture 
vided for confinement 
$52 was approved and 

licant  was  tried  before  a  special 
He 

for violation of Article 86, U C M J .  

. 

pled  guilty  to  being  AWOL  for  7  days  (17  -  24  June  1957). 
Applicant  was  sentenced  to  confinement  at  hard  labor  for  two 
months and  forfeiture of  $28 for two months.  The  sentence was 
adjudged on 5 July 1957 and was approved and ordered executed by 
the convening authority on 9 July 1957. 

On  15  October  1957,  applicant  was  tried  before  a &.special 
court-martial at Scott AFB for violation of Article 86,  UCMJ. 
He 
pled  guilty to being AWOL  for 6 days  (19 -  25 September 1957). 
Applicant  was  sentenced to be  confined  at  hard  labor  for  four 
months, to forfeit $25 for 4 months and to be discharged with a 
bad  conduct  discharge  (BCD) . 
The  sentence  was  adjudged  on 
24 October  1957  and,  on  31  October  1957,  the  sentence  was 
approved and the record of trial was  forwarded for action under 
Article  65b.  On  5 November  1957, the  sentence was modified  by 
the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction to the 
extent that the BCD was suspended until release from confinement 
or  completion  of  appellate  review.  The  record  of  trial  was 
forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the USAF for review by 
a Board of Review. 
On  25  February  1958,  applicant  was  tried  before  a  special 
court-martial at Scott AFB for violation of Article 86,  UCMJ.  He 
pled guilty to being AWOL for 3 days  (12 -  15 February.1958) and 
5  days  (17 -  22  February  1958).  Applicant  was  sentenced  to 
confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $28.--The 
sentence  was  approved  and  ordered  executed  by  the  convening 
authority on 25 February 1958. 
On  21 March  1958,  he  received  a  bad  conduct  discharge  in  the 
grade of airman basic  (permanent) under the provisions of Special 
Court-Martial  Order  (SCMO) 18,  dated  17  March  1958,  and  AFR 
'39-18.  He  had  completed  a  total  of  5  months  and  11  days  of 
active duty service and had a total of 261 days of lost time at 
the time of discharge. 

Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 19 March  1998, that, 
on the basis  of data  furnished, they  are unable to  identify an 
arrest record. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Air  Force Legal Services Agency, HQ AFLSA/JAJM,  stated that 
the application was not timely filed and the applicant offers no 
reason  or  explanation  for  his  failure  to  file  within  the 
statutory period.  JAJM stated that the applicant entered active 
duty  on  9  January  1957,  less  than a  week  after  his  eighteenth 
birthday.  At  the  time  of  the  court-martial that  adjudged  his 
discharge, applicant  had  two previous  court-martial convictions 
for violations of Article 86.  He left his place of duty on both 
occasions to go to the home of a girl he had gotten pregnant.  It 
was his desire to marry her and he did, during the second period 

2 

97-01759 

of absence without leave  (AWOL).  The second AWOL took place the 
day following applicant’s release from confinement for the first 
AWOL.  JAJM  stated  that  while  there  appears  to  be  mitigating 
factors  of  applicant‘s  youth  and  the  circumstances  with  his 
future  wife,  the  court-martial  action  and  the  sentence  were 
appropriate for the offenses committed.  These factors were fully 
reviewed in the post-trial phase of the case and no clernsncy was 
deemed  appropriate. 
JAJM  stated  that  there  are  no  errors 
affecting the  rights of  the applicant  that  require  correction. 
Accordingly, JAJM  recommended the Board interpose the statute of 
limitations and deny applicant the requested relief.  A complete 
copy of  this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
22 December 1997 for review and  response.  As  of this date, no 
response has been received by this office  (Exhibit E). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. 
law or regulations. 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is &--‘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.  We 
have  reviewed  the  court-martial  proceedings  and  subsequent 
‘discharge and believe them to be  proper  and  in accordance with 
appropriate directives then  in  effect.  Although  the  applicant 
provides documentation regarding his post-service activities, we 
find this information to be of limited scope and, in our view, it 
does not meet  the criteria for approval of the requested relief 
based on clemency and compassion.  We therefore 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  e r r o r   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. 

3 

97-01759 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  15 May  1998, under  the  provisions  of  A F I  
36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Mr. Parker C .   Horner, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 J u l   97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Nov 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Dec 97, and 
 

AFBCMR, dated 6 M

x

a

r

e
! 

LEROY T. BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

4 

97-01759