RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01776
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The events occurred over 30 years ago and happened at a time  when  he
had served three years of a four-year enlistment in good standing.  He
developed an intense fear  of  flying  and  was  unable  to  make  his
scheduled departure to Vietnam for a final tour of duty.

Since his discharge, he has worked at Massachusetts  General  Hospital
for 28 years.  He has been sufficiently punished for what he considers
to be "youthful transgressions" and feels it is unfair  that  he  does
not qualify for any Veteran benefits.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  letter  from  his
senator, his DD Form 214, his request for clemency  package  submitted
in 1969, and additional documents associated with the issues cited  in
his contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records reflect that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 8 October 1965 for a period of  four  years.   He
was progressively promoted to the  permanent  grade  of  airman  first
class (E-1), with the effective date and date of rank of 1 Jul 68.

On 11 Jan 68, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 30 Dec 67,
in violation of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   Applicant  elected  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15. The commander, determined that  applicant
was guilty of the offense and imposed punishment  consisting  of  base
restriction for 30 days; forfeiture of  $50  pay  per  month  for  two
months; and, reduction to the grade  of  airman.   Applicant  did  not
appeal the punishment.

On 17 Apr 68, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 10 Apr 68,
in violation of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   Applicant  elected  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15.  The commander, determined that applicant
was guilty  of  the  offense  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of
correctional custody for  30  days.   Applicant  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On 19 Nov 68, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to  go  at  the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 1 Nov  68,
in violation of  Article  86,  UCMJ.   Applicant  elected  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15. The commander, determined that  applicant
was guilty  of  the  offense  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of
correctional custody for  30  days.   Applicant  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On 5 Mar 69, applicant was tried before  a  special  court-martial  at
Vandenberg AFB.  He pled guilty to the charge of missing  movement  by
design, on or about 6 Nov 68, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ.  On  7
Mar 69, applicant was sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge.   The
sentence was approved by the convening authority on 14 Mar  69.  On  1
May 69, the Air Force  Board  of  Review  affirmed  the  findings  and
sentence.

On 22 September 1969, the applicant was relieved from  his  assignment
and discharged under other than honorable conditions in the  grade  of
airman basic (E-1).  He had completed a total of 3  years,  11  months
and 15 days of active duty service at the time of discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 28 December 1998, that, on the  basis  of
data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force Legal  Services  Agency,  AFLSA/JAJM,  stated  that  the
applicant was an airman first class (E-3), assigned to the 136th Photo
Squadron, at Vandenberg AFB, CA.  He had received orders to  Southeast
Asia (Vietnam) and was scheduled to report no later than 1700 on 6 Nov
68 for a scheduled departure  from  Travis  AFB,  CA,  at  1900.   The
applicant did not show for  his  flight.   Earlier  in  the  day,  the
applicant was called into the acting  commander's  office  because  he
(acting commander) had received information  that  the  applicant  had
stated he was not going to go to Travis AFB and board the flight.  The
applicant informed the commander he did not intend to go to Travis  to
make his flight on 6 Nov 68 because he had a fear of  flying  and  had
family problems at home.  The  applicant  was  briefed  by  the  legal
office as to the consequences of missing his  flight.   The  commander
gave the applicant a direct order to report to the flight and arranged
to  have  the  first  sergeant  accompany   the   applicant   to   his
outprocessing appointments.  The applicant completed outprocessing  by
1330 and was not seen until the next  day  at  0830,  when  the  first
sergeant found applicant in bed.

JAJM indicated that a mental health provider at the base hospital  had
conducted a psychiatric evaluation on the applicant and concluded that
the applicant had a passive-aggressive personality disorder  and  that
he did suffer a fear of flying.  The mental health provider  concluded
that the fear of flying was not of sufficient severity  to  warrant  a
psychiatric diagnosis.  He further indicated that  the  applicant  was
capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

In addition to his court-martial offense, the applicant  had  received
three Article 15s for failure to repair (failure to go).  At his court-
martial, the applicant plead guilty to  the  charge  and  a  panel  of
military officers sentenced him to a Bad Conduct Discharge.

JAJM stated that the  applicant  acknowledges  that  he  intentionally
missed his flight to Vietnam even after being  given  a  direct  order
from his acting commander.   He  was  also  briefed  on  the  negative
consequences of  missing  his  flight.   The  Article  32,  Report  of
Investigation, indicates that the applicant's fear of flying  did  not
become an issue until several days prior to his departure for Vietnam.
 The mental health provider testified that the applicant first came to
see him on 4 Nov 68 and asked for his help in getting out  of  Vietnam
due to personal problems.  The mental health  provider  also  saw  the
applicant on the morning of 6 Nov 68, which was the day he missed  his
movement.  The applicant was intoxicated and told him that he  had  to
get out of Vietnam.  The mental health  provider  testified  that  the
applicant's intoxication was not enough to impair his ability to  form
a specific intent to miss his movement.  Although he  had  a  fear  of
flying, the applicant had successfully flown on several flights  after
the alleged incident which made him uneasy flying.

JAJM stated that it is clear in the record of trial that the applicant
was a  disciplinary  problem  in  his  squadron.   He  did  not  serve
honorably and therefore  does  not  deserve  an  honorable  discharge.
Upgrading the applicant's discharge would be an insult  to  all  those
men and women who served in Vietnam  honorably.   No  legal  error  or
injustice occurred during the applicant's  court-martial  which  would
justify upgrading his BCD to an honorable  discharge.   The  applicant
does not dispute that he  committed  the  offense  for  which  he  was
convicted.  The applicant's contention that he had a  fear  of  flying
which prevented him from boarding his flight to Vietnam appears to  be
an excuse for getting out of combat duty.

After reviewing the available records and the documents  submitted  by
the applicant, JAJM recommended denial  of  the  applicant's  request.
JAJM stated that the applicant was aware of the  consequences  of  his
actions at the time he knowingly missed  his  flight  to  Vietnam.   A
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  had
never flown in an airplane until he got into the service.   His  first
flight was to  basic  training;  his  second  flight  was  from  basic
training to his home for two weeks of leave; and his third flight  was
to his permanent change of station  (PCS)  at  Vandenberg  AFB.   This
third flight was nonstop from Boston to Los Angeles and he was  highly
nervous - they had to make an  emergency  landing  in  Kansas  due  to
engine power failures.  This sent him over the edge and he never  flew
home on leave.  Since his discharge, nearly 30 years ago, he  has  not
been in an airplane.

When he was court-martialed, he had to wait an entire year for a final
verdict.  He feels he was a good soldier.  Even under extreme pressure
and squadron detail his final year, he never went AWOL or was flip  to
any one.  He may have drank too much beer  trying  to  deal  with  his
problems, which caused a couple of Article 15s against him for failure
to repair and showing up  for  roll  call  late.   Included  with  his
application are statements from three of his first sergeants

He only flew a couple of times while in the Air Force  but  all  these
flights were made in a C-47, which was not as bad as a commercial jet.
 At the time he told his commander he could not  fly  to  Vietnam,  he
asked if he could go by boat.  He was told that flying  was  the  only
way.  He was honest and told his commander that he  did  not  mean  to
disobey his orders, but  he  could  not  fly  anymore.   He  was  then
confined to his barracks, which is why they found him in bed  the  day
of his orders.  He  was  then  assigned  to  his  first  sergeant  for
squadron detail, which lasted for nearly a year, until  his  discharge
was finalized.  His lawyer informed him that he would have to wait  at
least five years before he could appeal.  He waited 30  years,  hoping
it would make a difference, only to find out he may  have  waited  too
long.

After the service, he returned to his home  in  Boston.   He  let  his
service photo experience work for  him  in  x-ray  processing  for  28
years; the last 20 years as a supervisor until January  1997.   He  is
currently  employed  at  a  local  supermarket.   He  has  never  been
arrested.  He feels he has been  a  model  citizen.   He  has  coached
several little league teams and has been involved for about  12  years
with  a  Big  Brother  program.   If  additional  character  reference
statements are needed, he  will  provide  them.   He  would  like  his
discharge upgraded to honorable so he can finally lift the  shame  and
clear his name.  He feels that after a year  of  squadron  detail  and
living 30 years in secrecy and shame,  he  has  paid  dearly  for  his
mistake.

A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
Legal Services Agency (AFLSA/JAJM) and adopt their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  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.   Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above  and  absent
evidence documenting a successful post-service adjustment, 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 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 18 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 15 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 11 Jan 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair