RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02541
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1960 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable  or,  in
the alternative, his first (honorable) enlistment  be  separated  from
his second enlistment so he can  receive  medical  benefits  from  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons applicant believes he has been  the  victim  of  an  error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which  is  attached
at Exhibit C.

A Certificate of Military Service indicates the  applicant  had  prior
honorable service from 21 May 1952 to 26 January 1959, at which  point
he reenlisted on 27 January 1959.  He was ultimately separated with  a
BCD on 21 October 1960.  There is no evidence in the available records
to indicate he had a break in service. The  remaining  relevant  facts
pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the   applicant's
military records, are contained in Record of Trial (Exhibit B) and the
letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  (Exhibit
D).  Accordingly, there is no need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this
appeal and contends there is  no  compelling  reason  to  upgrade  the
applicant’s discharge on the basis of equity.   It  appears  that  his
financial problems  were  not  caused  by  any  condition  beyond  his
control.  He created his financial problems  by  purchasing  too  many
expensive items in a short period of time. There is no  indication  in
the record of trial that he sought help from his command and  did  not
receive it as he  alleges.  The  post-trial  legal  review,  dated  21
October 1960, states the applicant’s “family and financial problems do
not appear to  be  any  greater  than  those  borne  by  other  airmen
performing honorable service.” The applicant claims he  went  AWOL  to
look for his daughter. It is important to note  that  after  he  found
her, he took a job hundreds of miles  away  from  where  his  daughter
lived. He had an opportunity to be rehabilitated in 1960 but chose not
to accept it.  At the time of his court-martial, the applicant had the
opportunity to be retained and was  given  the  chance  to  serve  his
enlistment. If successful, he  would  have  been  given  an  honorable
discharge. He did not want to remain in the Air Force. It appears  the
government was prepared to  grant  the  applicant  another  chance  at
rehabilitating himself; instead, he chose  to  get  out  with  a  BCD.
Denial  is  recommended.  Should  the  Board  consider  granting   the
applicant’s alternative request, the author suggests that, since  this
issue is outside  the  legal  framework,  the  appropriate  office  be
consulted to see if this could be done and whether the applicant would
then qualify for medical benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and explains why all  the  facts
and  circumstances  should  be  considered.  He  asserts  he  was   an
outstanding airman and entitled to a sensible review.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, concludes
the applicant has failed to provide sufficient basis for upgrading his
BCD and recommends denial.

A copy of the complete additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, evaluated the case
and advises that review of  AFM  39-9  indicates  that  each  term  of
service was based on separate enlistments. Air Force  policy  required
each term of service be documented on an original enlistment contract,
an oath  of  enlistment  be  administered,  along  with  a  report  of
separation  and  discharge  certificate  provided  the   member.   The
discharge certificate rendered to the  applicant  on  29  August  1955
confirms his first enlistment was terminated prior to entering another
term  of  service.  Although  honorably  discharged  after  his  first
enlistment, his service during subsequent enlistments  should  not  be
ignored just to allow him entitlement to VA benefits.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the additional evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 2 August 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 to warrant  granting  his
requests. His contentions are duly noted;  however,  we  do  not  find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.  In
addition, his misconduct appears to have continued after his discharge
and he has provided no evidence of exemplary post-service behavior  to
warrant upgrading the 1960 BCD on the basis of clemency. We also  note
the available record indicates that, upon completion of  his  term  of
service, he reenlisted on 27 January 1959.  As there appears to be  no
break in service, we  find  no  basis  for  granting  his  alternative
request that his first enlistment be “separated” from his  second.  We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. The case should be denied in its entirety.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not  have  materially
added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a hearing  is
not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 September 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                 Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 10 Dec 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jan 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jun 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Jul 99.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair