RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00471
            INDEX CODE:  110

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The only contentions applicant makes is “This was the  only  incident
after 31 months of service and I was  most  likely  immature  at  the
time.”

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 28 Jun  54
for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 21 Dec 55, a Summary Court-Martial was convened and applicant  was
charged under Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), of
being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 15 Nov 55 until on
or about 28 Nov 55.  The sentence was approved and the applicant  was
reduced from the grade of airman second class to the grade of  airman
third class and forfeiture of $50 pay.  The sentence was adjudged  on
21 Dec 55.

On 19 Nov 56, applicant was notified of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for failure to report to duty.

On 19 Nov 56,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  commander’s
disciplinary punishment and indicated that trial by court-martial was
not demanded and no matters in  mitigation,  extenuation  or  defense
were submitted.

On 19 Nov 56, he was found guilty by his commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction from  the  grade  of  airman  second
class to the grade of airman third class.

On 6 Dec 56, a Special Court-Martial was convened and  applicant  was
charged under Article 86, UCMJ, of being AWOL from  his  organization
from on or about 4 Oct 56 to on or about 21 Oct 56.   To  the  charge
and specification, the applicant pled guilty; however, this plea  was
subsequently withdrawn on motion of the defense counsel and a plea of
“not guilty” was entered.  The applicant  was  found  guilty  of  the
charge and specification.  He was sentenced to be  confined  at  hard
labor for six months and to be reduced from the grade  of  airman  to
the grade of airman basic.  The sentence was adjudged on 4 Dec 56.

Applicant’s Master Personnel Record (MPR) does not contain  the  case
file for his discharge for unfitness.  However, his  record  contains
information that on 14 Jan 57,  the  squadron  commander  recommended
that the applicant be discharged under the provisions  of  AFR  39-17
for unfitness.  Applicant  submitted  an  Application  for  Discharge
under the provisions of AFR 39-17 in lieu  of  involuntary  discharge
board proceedings.  The discharge authority  reviewed  the  case  and
directed  the  applicant  be  given  an  undesirable  discharge   for
unfitness.

On 1 Feb 57, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at
hard labor for six months was remitted, effective 5 Feb 57.

On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in  the
grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR  39-17  (Unfitness)
with an undesirable discharge.  He  was  credited  with  2  years,  5
months, and 20 days of active service with 64 days’ lost time.

On 15 Nov 61, the Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied
applicant’s  request  to  upgrade  his  discharge  to  general   (see
Exhibit C).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West  Virginia,  indicated  they  were  unable  to
locate an arrest record on the basis of  information  furnished  (see
Exhibit D).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated that the applicant  did  not  identify
any specific errors in the discharge proceedings  nor  provide  facts
warranting an upgrade of the  discharge  he  received.   Accordingly,
DPPRS recommends applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided  a  one-page
statement and  included  documents  regarding  his  activities  since
leaving the service.

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

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.  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 22 February 2000, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  AFDRB Brief, dated 15 Nov 61.
     Exhibit D.  FBI Report.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 May 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 25 Aug 99, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair