RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00722
            INDEX NUMBER:110.00

      FLETCHER, DALE E.      COUNSEL:  NONE

      205-26-0139      HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to  under  honorable  conditions
(general).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and foolish when he was 20  years  old  and  went  Absent
Without Leave (AWOL), not realizing what he was doing or how it  would
affect his life and bring shame to his  family.   He  states  that  he
retired from the Merchant Marines and worked for the  local  sheriff’s
office.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 November 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
in the grade of Private (E-1).  Prior to the events under  review,  he
was promoted to the grade of airman third  class  (E-2).   Applicant’s
grade at the time of discharge was airman basic     (E-1).

Applicant received character and efficiency ratings  of  excellent  on
his performance ratings from 15 Nov 51 – 01 Feb 52, 02 Feb 52 – 01 Apr
52, and 02 Apr 52 – 17 Jun 52.

On 21 May 1954, applicant was convicted by Special  Court-Martial  for
Violation of the Uniformed Code of Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  Article
86, to wit: on or about 08 January 1954, without proper authority,  he
absented himself from his organization, and remained absent  until  on
or about 14 April 1954.  He was sentenced to  reduction  in  grade  to
airman basic, confinement at  hard  labor  (CHL)  for  4  months,  and
forfeiture of $34.00 a month for 4 months.

On 31 August 1954, applicant was convicted a second  time  by  Special
Court-Martial for Violation of the UCMJ, Article 95,  to  wit:  on  or
about 31 July 1954, he escaped from lawful  confinement  in  the  Base
Guardhouse, Norton AFB,  CA.   He  was  sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct
discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances ($34.00 a month),  and
CHL for a period of 6 months.

On 02 December 1954, he was discharged under the provisions of     AFR
39-18, for reason of sentence of court-martial,  with  a  bad  conduct
discharge (BCD).  He was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and  8  days
of active service (excludes 293 days of lost time due  to  confinement
and AWOL).

On 19 September 1955, the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his BCD to
under honorable conditions (general) (Exhibit C).

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
the application and states that based upon documentation in the  file,
they believe the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
they stated the discharge was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant’s  frequent  misconduct  of  being
AWOL from his unit and desertion warranted the character of service he
was given.  They further stated  that  since  the  applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting
an upgrade of the discharge, they recommended that the records  remain
the same and his request be denied (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 May 2000,  a  copy  of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for his review and comment (Exhibit G).  As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.

Applicant responded to the FBI report  by  letter,  dated           19
September   2000,   and   gave   a   brief    description    of    the
circumstances/events which took place prior to his discharge and  some
post-service activities.  He also provided a personal  statement  from
his wife,  letters  of  reference  and  recommendation  from  previous
employment and certificates of training and other  employment  records
(Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________




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.   The  majority  of  the
Board finds no impropriety  in  the  characterization  of  applicant’s
discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and they 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.  The evidence provided indicates  that  the  applicant  has
been a responsible individual and good citizen since  his  separation.
Nonetheless, in view of the seriousness of the misconduct which led to
his court-martials and subsequent discharge, the majority of the Board
is not persuaded that  an  upgrade  of  the  characterization  of  his
discharge is warranted on the basis  of  clemency.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, a majority of  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member


By a majority vote, the members voted to deny  the  request.       Ms.
Loeb voted to correct the record  and  did  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record dated 19 Sep 55.
    Exhibit D.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Apr 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 May 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 00.
    Exhibit H.  Applicant’s response dated 19 Sep 00, w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do  not
agree with  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  panel  that  the
applicant’s request for upgrade of his 2  December  1954  bad  conduct
discharge should be denied.

      After reviewing  the  available  documentation,  I  believe  the
applicant’s discharge should be upgraded, on the basis of clemency.

      The applicant has had to live with the adverse  effects  of  his
bad conduct discharge for over 45 years, and while the  discharge  may
have been appropriate at the time, I believe it would be an  injustice
for him to continue to suffer from its  effects.   From  the  evidence
before me, it appears that, except for the incidents which led to  his
discharge, the applicant had been a good performer as evidenced by the
excellent  character  and  efficiency  ratings  he  received  on   his
performance ratings.  Additionally, I  note  that  subsequent  to  his
discharge from the Air Force, the applicant  continued  to  serve  his
country through his service with the United States  Merchant  Marines.
It appears that the applicant  has  been  a  responsible  citizen  and
productive member of society since his separation.

Certainly I do not condone the behavior that led to  his  bad  conduct
discharge.  Nonetheless, since it serves no useful purpose to the  Air
Force or to society in general to continue the nature of his discharge
at this late date, it is my decision that his discharge be upgraded to
general (under honorable conditions).




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR 00-00722




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that  on  2  December
1954, he was discharged with service characterized as  general  (under
honorable conditions).




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency