RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01222
                             INDEX CODE: 110.00

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   COUNSEL: NONE

        xxxxxxxxxxx    HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His civil offense was never a  conviction.   He  was  released  on  his  own
recognizance and never convicted.  Most of the charges against him were  for
failure to appear, or an Article 86, which was a direct result of him  being
off base.

He states that he was not counseled by his commanding officer prior  to  his
discharge.   His  commander   instructed   him   to   sign   the   necessary
documentation for discharge and told him that he would  not  receive  a  bad
conduct  discharge  (BCD),  but  a  hardship  discharge.   His  conduct  and
efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good and he  received
letters of commendation.  He states that  financial  and  personal  problems
impaired his ability to serve and he suffered religious discrimination.

In support of his  request,  he  submits  a  personal  statement  and  other
documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1960 in the  grade
of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 24 September 1962, applicant’s commander notified  him  that  involuntary
discharge action had been initiated against him because of unfitness.

The commander  indicated  that  applicant  had  established  a  pattern  for
shirking and for his involvement with civilian and military authorities  and
an evidenced pattern showing a dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

The commander indicated the following  specific  reasons  for  the  proposed
discharge were because civilian authorities had arrested the  applicant  for
suspicion of burglary.  He had been convicted by court-martial  for  failure
to go and again for failure to abide restriction.  He then received a  third
court-martial conviction for failure to go.  Because of his  misconduct,  he
was placed on the Airman’s  Control  Roster.   He  was  apprehended  by  Air
Police while trying to leave the confines of  Oxnard  AFB  without  a  pass.
Applicant had been verbally reprimanded for wearing an unacceptable  uniform
and again for being absent from Commanders  call.   Finally,  the  commander
had received three Letters of Indebtedness  concerning  applicant’s  failure
to pay just debts during a  three  month  period.   As  a  result  of  these
incidents he recommended  to  the  discharge  authority  that  applicant  be
separated from the Air Force with an Undesirable Discharge.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,  to
submit statements in his own behalf and the right to appear before  a  Board
of Officers; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 24 September 1962, applicant consulted counsel, waived  his  right  to  a
Board hearing, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 October 1962, the discharge authority approved the recommendation  for
discharge for frequent involvement of a discreditable nature  with  military
and civilian authorities  and  directed  the  applicant  be  given  a  UOTHC
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 23 October 1962, in the grade  of  airman  basic
with a UOTHC discharge, under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17  (Unfitness  –
Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with  Civilian  and  Military
Authorities).  He served a total of 1 year, 9 months and  6  days  of  total
active military service with a total of 88 days lost time.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  Separations  Branch,   HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that  this  case  has  been
reviewed  for  separation  processing   and   there   are   no   errors   or
irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the  applicant.   The  discharge
complies with directives in effect  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.   The
records indicate 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  that  warrant  an  honorable
discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that after  receiving
what he was told to be a general discharge, because of financial and  family
problems, he went  to  flight  school.   The  ground  schooling  and  flight
instruction were applied for and granted to him as a veteran.  The  Veterans
Administration (VA) covered 90% of all costs related in obtaining his  pilot
license.  He had no reason to believe that  he  had  received  any  kind  of
discharge that would not enable him  to  apply  for  and  receive  veteran’s
benefits until he went to the VA hospital.  He was then  told  that  he  was
not eligible for treatment due to the type of discharge he received.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, 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.     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 3 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Aug 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated Aug 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Sep 99.




                                BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                Panel Chair