AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

FEB  5 

+;$JJ 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01210 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
An  unconstitutional process was used against him based on racism. 
A  court-martial was convened and he was  found innocent.  After 
the charges were dismissed, he was administratively discharged. 
In support of his appeal; the applicant provided several -personal 
statements (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The  applicant  initially  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on 
16 Sep 47 for three years.  He  reenlisted on 3  Nov  50  for six 
years.  He  was  honorably  discharged  on  10  Nov  55  under  the 
provisions  of  AFR  39-13  (Hardship).  He  was  credited  with 
8 years, 1 month, and 24 days of active duty service. 
On 6 Aug 57, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
four years in the grade of airman second class. 
On  14  Mar  58,  the  applicant  was  convicted  by  summary  court- 
martial of one of two specifications of failure to repair on or 
about 5 Mar 58.  He was restricted to the limits of the base for 
15 days and ordered to forfeit $25.00. 
On  11  Jun  58,  the  applicant's commander  requested  that  he  be 
separated from the Air Force with an undesirable discharge.  The 
commander indicated that the applicant had lied to him regarding 
his  family status.  The commander indicated that  the  applicant 
had stated that he was married to a L--- W--- and E---  S---  both 
at the same time.  The applicant further admitted to him that he 
had lied to the Air Police Division Chief about getting married 

in Jan 58 in order to secure an emergency leave.  He further lied 
to  the  commander  by  stating  that  he  had  a  degree  from  the 
Agricultural  and  Technical College of  North  Carolina, when,  in 
fact,  he  had  not  received  any  credits  from  the  college. 
According to the commander, the applicant's work performance was 
so  substandard  as  to  cause  the  Air  Police  Division  Chief  to 
relieve him of his regular Air Police duties and assign him as a 
Barracks  Orderly. 
The  commander  further  indicated  that  the 
applicant  was  such  a  chronic  liar  as  to  render  his  ltwordll 
completely worthless to the commander. 

On  16  Jun  58,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge 
action  and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  furnished  an 
undesirable discharge. 
The applicant was discharged on 19 Jun 
AFR  39-21  (Fraudulent Entry  in  the 
Dependents)  and  furnished  an  other 
(undesirable) discharge. 
Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request, 
the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report 
which is attached at Exhibit C. 

58 under the provisions of 
Air  Force--Concealment  of 
than  honorable  conditions 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

F 

. 

The Separation Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and 
recommended denial.  DPPRS indicated that the case was reviewed 
and  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and 
substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and  was 
within the discretion of  the discharge authority, and  that  the 
applicant  was  provided  full  administrative  due  process.  The 
records  indicated  that  the  applicant's  military  service  was 
reviewed  and  appropriate  action  was  taken.  The  records  also 
indicated that the applicant was court-martialed and found guilty 
of only one of the two specifications and charges.  However, his 
discharge  was  not  based  on  the  reasons  for  the  court-martial 
action.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit evidence 
or identify any errors in the  discharge processing nor provide 
facts which would warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received 
almost 40 years ago. 
A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Counsel  indicated  that  given  the  applicant's total  period  of 
service  and  the  reason  he  was  separated,  the  discharge  was 
excessively harsh.  In counsel's view, the applicant would not 
have  received  an  undesirable discharge  under  current  standards 

2 

AFBCMR 98-01210 

for the  offense  of  concealment  of  dependents.  Therefore, the 
discharge should be changed to honorable or general (Exhibit F). 
By letter, dated 7 Jul 98, the Franklin County Veterans Service 
Commission, provided a statement from the applicant (Exhibit G )  
By letter, dated 29 Jul  98, the Franklin County Veterans Service 
Commission,  provided  two  statements  from  the  applicant  and 
several supportive statements (Exhibit H) . 

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 
evidence of record reflects that the applicant was discharged for 
fraudulent entry in the Air Force.  We find no evidence that the 
applicant's discharge was  improper or contrary to the governing 
regulation under  which-it  was  effected.  We  took  note  of  the 
post-service documentation provided  in  support of  this  appeal. 
However, we did not  find it  sufficient to warrant upgrading his 
discharge  based  on  clemency  in  view  of  the  seriousness  and 
multiplicity of his misconduct.  Accordingly, we conclude that no 
basis  exists  to  recommend  favorable  action on  the  applicant's 
request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

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 1 Dec  98, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603 : 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member 

3 

AFBCMR 98-01210 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 

DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
FBI Report. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 98. 
Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98. 
Letter, counsel, undated. 
Letter, Franklin County Veterans Service 
Commission, dated 7 Jul 98, w/atch. 
Letter, Franklin County Veterans Service 
Commission, dated 29 Jul 98, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

4 

AFBCMR 98-01210