RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01057
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In essence, that his BCD was inequitable because it was  based  on  an
incident of 30 months or longer  with  no  adverse  action.   He  also
states that he was very young and foolish, and wants to apologize  for
all of his actions.  He is also very sorry for this thing he has done.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 October 1956  for  a
period of 6 years, in the grade of airman second class.

On 18 May 1959, the applicant absented himself without authority  from
his duty station at XXXXXXXX AFB, and remained absent  until  15  June
1959.  On 16 June 1959, he was restricted  by  his  commander  to  the
limits of his base.  On 18 June 1959, he  was  ordered  by  his  first
sergeant to report to the orderly  room  at  0830  on  19  June  1959.
However, he did not report as ordered and could not be located  either
at his barracks or his usual place of duty.  On 20 June 1959,  he  was
apprehended by civilian authorities in Laredo,  TX,  and  returned  to
military authorities.  He returned to XXXXXXXX AFB on 23 June 1959 and
was ordered into confinement.  On 8 July 1959,  while  assigned  to  a
work detail, he escaped  from  confinement,  but  was  apprehended  by
military authorities later  that  same  date.   As  a  result  of  his
actions, he was then charged with and tried by  special  court-martial
for  being  absent  without  authority,  disobeying  a  lawful  order,
breaking restriction, and escape from  confinement,  in  violation  of
Articles 86, 92, 134 and 95, UCMJ.  He pled guilty  to  the  AWOL  and
breaking restriction charges, and not guilty to the remaining offenses
and was sentenced to a BCD, 3 months confinement, forfeitures  of  $70
pay per month for 3  months,  and  reduction  to  airman  basic.   His
conviction was affirmed on appeal and  the  BCD  was  executed  on  16
October 1959.  He served 2 years 5 months and 23 days of total  active
service.  He was discharged on 19 October 1959.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  that
they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  reviewed
the application and states that the applicant does not dispute that he
committed the offenses for which he was convicted, and does not allege
that any injustice or legal error occurred during  his  court-martial.
Also, the record of trial contains  no  evidence  of  legal  error  or
injustice, and the applicant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal.

They further state that if the applicant’s assertions about how he has
turned his life around are true, he  should  certainly  be  commended.
However, he has provided no documentation to support  statements  made
in his application.  Even if his  application  and  DD  Form  293  are
factually  accurate,  there  is  no  substantive   justification   for
upgrading his BCD to an honorable discharge.   The  BCD  reflects  the
applicant’s characterization of active duty service.  Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist  Separations  Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the applicant did
not submit any new evidence or  identify  any  errors  in  the  court-
martial proceedings or the discharge processing  that  caused  him  an
injustice.  They recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the application and states that  he  profoundly
apologizes to his country and to the Board for his  actions  that  got
him into all of this.  He also apologizes for taking so long in trying
to straighten out his record.  He did not know that there was  a  time
limit, so he is asking the Board to accept this.  He  states  that  he
was young and foolish when all of this happened, and did  not  realize
or understand what could happen in the long run.   He  is  asking  the
Board to please rule in his favor, as it will  take  a  load  off  his
mind.

In support of the appeal, he submits post service documentation.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

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.  We find no  impropriety
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.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant’s overall quality of service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence  related  to  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

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 8 April 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 May 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 1 Sep 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Oct 98.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 98.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 26 Feb 99.




                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                             Panel Chair