RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01004
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge he received on  19 Jan  62  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

With approval by the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB),  he
reentered the Air Force in Aug 65 with creditable prior service  time,
his previous rank of airman second class  (E-3),  and  his  choice  of
assignment.  Upon his discharge in 1969, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicated  that,
in addition to the then current four years “net service  this  period”
he was given creditable service “other service” of 1 year,  2  months,
and 3 days.  He has lived his adult life with  the  thought  that  his
undesirable time was deemed creditable as a  result  of  his  original
appeal to the AFDRB and serving  honorably  the  additional  4  years.
Upon his retirement from the Veterans Administration (VA) in  Dec  97,
he learned that a separate DD Form 214  for  the  period  of  time  in
question was required and that the DD Form 214  he  received  in  1969
would not cover his first period of  service.   He  learned  that  the
character of service was still,  after  all  these  years,  listed  as
undesirable.  He feels the incident he was involved with in 1962 had a
tremendous impact on his life and he has worked all his adult life  to
overcome the stigma of his  undesirable  discharge.   He  appeals  for
clemency.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s master personnel records do not  contain  a  copy  of  the
AFDRB action he mentions, his discharge case file, or a  DD  Form  214
for his 19 Jan 62 discharge.  However, a DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record -
 Armed Forces of the United States) reflects the applicant enlisted in
the Regular Air Force on 31 Aug 65 for a period  of  4  years  in  the
grade of airman second class.  Prior service documentation on  the  DD
Form 4 indicates  the  applicant’s  date  of  enlistment  to  date  of
discharge was 11 Oct 60 - 19 Jan 62 and that he was discharged with an
undesirable discharge in the grade  of  airman  second  class  with  a
Separation Designation Number (SDN) of 284 (Misconduct - convicted  by
civil court during current term of military service) with 30  days  of
lost time which was verified from a DD Form 214 (indicated on  the  DD
Form 4).

Applicant’s DD Form 214 for  his  1969  separation  indicates  he  was
released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserves on
2 Sep 69 under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-10  (Convenience  of  the
Government) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade
of staff sergeant  with  an  SDN  of  411  (Separation -  Insufficient
service retainability  for  permanent  change  of  station)  (overseas
returnees only).  He was credited with 4  years  and  2  days  of  net
service and 1 year, 2 months, and 3 days of other service with no lost
time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application  and  indicated  that,  although  the  applicant  was
allowed to reenlist with his previous rank and creditable  service  by
an approval  authority  that  DPPRS  cannot  determine,  there  is  no
evidence to indicate an injustice occurred in his original  discharge.
No new facts  have  been  presented  to  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his
undesirable discharge and they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
11 May 98 for review and response.  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 warranting  a  change  in
applicant’s undesirable discharge that he received on 19 Jan  62.   We
find no improperiety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.
 It appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards
in effecting the separation, and we do not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or  that  applicant  was  not
afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of  discharge.
We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances.

_________________________________________________________________

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 23 February 1999, under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  FBI Report, dated 22 Jul 98
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 May 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair