RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01303
                             INDEX CODE: 110.00

        XXXXX          COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION

        XXXXX          HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not know what he did to receive this  type  of  discharge.   He  was
always on time and followed orders.  He states that he was awakened at  4:00
a.m. and was told that he was going to be discharged and  was  not  given  a
hearing.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 April 1953  in  the  grade
of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 20 March 1955, applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him because of unfitness.   The  commander
indicated he gave evidence of habits and traits of character  manifested  by
amoral trend (failure to maintain dress or personal hygiene).  In  addition,
his duty performance was substandard and he had been in constant trouble  in
regards to his personal obligations.  On 28  March  1955,  applicant  waived
his right to appear before a board of officers,  and  voluntarily  submitted
an application for discharge.  He also  indicated  that  he  understood  his
discharge could be less than honorable.  On  28 March  1955,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 10 June 1955, in the grade of airman basic  with
an undesirable discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).   He
had completed 6 years, 1 month and 15 days of total active military  service
with 14 days lost time.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that there are  no  errors  or
irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the  applicant;  and  that   the
discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of  his  discharge.
The  records  indicate  the  member’s  military  service  was  reviewed  and
appropriate action was taken.  The applicant did not identify  any  specific
errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts warranting  an  upgrade
of the discharge he received.   Therefore,  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:

Counsel states that it would appear that the petitioner would be  discharged
under the provisions of AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-26,  3b,c,  unsatisfactory
performance, or  failure  to  maintain  dress  or  personal  hygiene.   This
regulation provides for either a general or honorable discharge.   There  is
no provision for a  less  than  honorable  type  discharge.   The  applicant
appears to have committed some acts of  misconduct,  but  the  acts  do  not
appear to have been of such a nature that would currently call for an  other
than honorable  discharge.   He  did  not  commit  bodily  harm  to  anyone,
endanger the security of the United States, or use acts of violence.

Counsel's complete response is attached 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.     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.
Considered alone, we conclude the  discharge  proceedings  were  proper  and
characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate   to   the   existing
circumstances.

4.    Consideration of this Board, however, is not  limited  to  the  events
which precipitated the discharge.  We have  a  Congressional  mandate  which
permits consideration of other factors; e.g.,  applicant's  background,  the
overall   quality   of   service,   and    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments.  Further, we may base our decision  on  matters  of  equity
and clemency rather than simply  on  whether  rules  and  regulations  which
existed at the time were followed.  This is  a  much  broader  consideration
than officials involved in the discharge were permitted,  and  our  decision
in no way discredits the validity of theirs.

5.    Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of  all  the
facts  and  circumstances  of  applicant's  case,  we  are  persuaded   that
applicant has been  a  productive  member  of  society.   We  recognize  the
adverse impact of the discharge applicant received; and, while it  may  have
been appropriate at the time, we  believe  it  would  be  an  injustice  for
applicant to continue to suffer its  effects.   Accordingly,  we  find  that
corrective action is appropriate as a matter of equity and on the  basis  of
clemency.  Therefore, we recommend his discharge be upgraded  to  one  under
honorable conditions (General).  Applicant’s request to have  his  discharge
upgraded to a fully honorable discharge was considered;  however,  based  on
his overall record we do not believe that a further upgrade is warranted.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 10 June 1955, he  was  discharged
with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 December 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
            Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member


All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 July 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 August 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 26 August 1999.
   Exhibit F.  FBI Report.



                 VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                 Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-01303





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX be corrected to show that on 10 June 1955, he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions).






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director

            Air Force Review Boards Agency