RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03304

                             INDEX CODE:  110.00


                             COUNSEL: NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records will indicate that he  was  not  extremely  mentally  well
adjusted.  He received no advice, no counseling and  no  psychological
evaluation.  He states that the injustice  to  a  seventeen-year  old,
forty-five years ago still remains unjust.

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

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18  July  1955  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On  28  May  1956,  the  commander  recommended   the   applicant   be
involuntarily discharged for unfitness.  The commander  indicated  the
applicant had been court-martialed  twice  for  being  absent  without
leave (AWOL).  The commander advised that the applicant made  repeated
efforts to manipulate reality to suit his own needs and purposely went
AWOL  in  an  effort  to  provoke  administrative  separation.   After
acknowledgement of receipt of the  action  being  recommended  against
him, he submitted a request to be discharged.

On 4 June 1956,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
application and directed that he be given an undesirable discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 18 June 1956, in the grade of airman basic
with an undesirable discharge,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17
(Unfitness).  He had completed  11  months  and  1  day  total  active
military service with 142 days lost time.
On 23 April  1963,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and  denied  applicant’s  appeal  for  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge (Exhibit B).

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, W.V., provided an  investigative  report  which  is
attached at Exhibit H.  Applicant’s response  to  the  FBI  Report  is
attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that based  upon  the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.   Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within   the   sound
discretion of the discharge authority and  the  character  of  service
given was appropriate.  The applicant did not submit any new  evidence
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts  warranting
an  upgrade   of   the   discharge   characterization   he   received.
Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same.  He  has  not
filed a timely request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that at no time
did  he  consider  his  reality  and  make  this  effort  to   provoke
administrative separation.  He was seventeen and  squirrely.   He  had
not been advised.   No  one  discussed  this  matter  with  him.   The
commander had acknowledged he received a recommendation to take action
against him.  He knew nothing of this action.  He believes  the  sound
discretion of the authority was not appropriate and an  injustice  was
done to him.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

On 6 March  2001,  the  Board  requested  that  the  applicant  submit
documentation pertaining to post-service activities within thirty (30)
days (Exhibit F).  The applicant’s complete response  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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of  record,  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 the member was not afforded all  the
rights to which entitled at the time  of  his  discharge.   Therefore,
based on the evidence of record, we  find  no  basis  uppon  which  to
favorably consider this application.

4.     Although   the   applicant   did   not   specifically   request
consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to
warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.
 Applicant has not provided information of his post-service activities
and accomplishments after being provided  an  opportunity  to  present
such information to the Board.  Additionally, we note the report  from
the FBI which indicates that the applicant was apparently involved  in
post-service  criminal  activities  which   he   has   not   disputed.
Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we  cannot  conclude  that
clemency is  warranted.   Should  applicant  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting to  his  good  character
and  reputation  and  other  evidence   of   successful   post-service
rehabilitation, this Board would be willing to review this information
for  possible  reconsideration  of  this  case.   However,  we  cannot
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. William H. Anderson, Member
                  Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 01.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Mar 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Apr 01.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 01.





                                HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                Panel Chair