RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00714
            INDEX CODE:  10.00, 73.00,
                              73.01,73.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served honorably until he got drunk and went absent without leave
(AWOL).  He was still a boy and became an alcoholic at 18  years  of
age.  Since 1960, he has not been in trouble except for a couple  of
speeding tickets.  He  appeals  for  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge
because he needs Veteran Administration (VA) benefits.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Jan 56, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) for a period of four years.   He  was  honorably  discharged
from the Air Force on 23 Jan 58 and reenlisted on 24 Jan  58  for  a
period of six years.

On  17 Apr  58,  applicant  received  a  summary  court-martial  for
violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in
that, on or about 2 Apr 58, without authority, he  absented  himself
from his organization and remained absent until 16 Apr 58.   He  was
reduced from the grade of airman second class to the grade of  basic
airman, confined to hard labor for one  month,  and  forfeited  $15.
The sentence was adjudged on 17 Apr 58.

On  9 May  58,  applicant  received  a  special  court-martial   for
violation of Article 95, UCMJ, for escaping from lawful  confinement
in the base guard house on or about 18 Apr 58.   For  the  foregoing
offense, he was to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct
discharge, forfeitures of $39 a month for three months,  and  to  be
confined to hard labor for three months.  The sentence was  adjudged
on 9 May 58.  However, his sentence was set aside and he was retried
by Special Court-Martial on 10 Sep 58.  The  sentence  was  approved
and applicant was to forfeit $39 pay a month for three months and to
be confined to hard labor for three months.  However,  the  sentence
to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct  discharge  was
vacated.  The sentence was adjudged on 10 Sep 58.

On  2 Oct  59,  applicant  received  a  general  court-martial   for
violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being  AWOL  from  25 Oct  58  to
30 Jun 59.  He was sentenced to one-year confinement at  hard  labor
and a dishonorable discharge.

On 21 Jan 60, the applicant was discharged from  the  Air  Force  by
general court-martial with a dishonorable discharge in the grade  of
airman basic.  He was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and  10  days
of active service.

On  21 Mar  60,  the  dishonorable  discharge  was  upgraded  to  an
undesirable discharge by direction of the Commandant, United  States
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an  investigative  report
indicating that on the basis of data furnished, they were unable  to
locate an arrest record (see Exhibit C).

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   processing.    However,
considering he was 19 years old  at  the  time  he  went  AWOL,  the
severity of the crime and his otherwise  honorable  service  record,
DPPRS recommends clemency.  If a  check  of  the  FBI  files  proves
negative, they recommend his undesirable discharge  be  upgraded  to
under honorable conditions (general).

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  provided  a  three-
page response.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

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.    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 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,  the  Board
concludes 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,  the  Board  is
persuaded that applicant has been a  productive  member  of  society
since leaving the service.  In view of this and noting his honorable
enlistment prior to the period of service under review,  we  believe
it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer  the  adverse
effects  of  the  discharge  he  received  almost  40   years   ago.
Therefore, we believe an upgrade  of  the  characterization  of  his
service to general (under honorable conditions) is warranted on  the
basis of clemency.  However,  in  view  of  his  overall  record  of
service, we are not persuaded that further upgrade of his  discharge
to fully honorable 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  21 Jan  60,  he
was  discharged  with  service  characterized  as   general   (under
honorable conditions).

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
              Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 23 Nov 99.




     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Aug 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 18 Oct 99.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-00714




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 , be corrected to show that on 21 January 1960, he
was  discharged  with  service  characterized  as   general   (under
honorable conditions).







                                                           JOE    G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                          Air  Force
Review Boards Agency