RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

          AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS




 IN THE MATTER OF:     DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00951
            INDEX CODE:  110.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO




 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:


 His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be  upgraded  to
 honorable.


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:


 Applicant makes no contentions on his application.


 Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


 _________________________________________________________________


 STATEMENT OF FACTS:


 On 6 Apr 51, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
 (RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of private.


 On 22 May  51,  the  applicant  was  medically  examined  with  the
 following findings:


            He was mentally responsible both  to  distinguish  right
 from wrong and to adhere to the right.


            He had no mental or  physical  condition  sufficient  to
 warrant discharge for medical reasons.


            He had  a  condition  which,  in  the  medical  doctor’s
 opinion, rendered him unsuitable for military  service  within  the
 intent of AFR 39-16, namely:  Lack of physical stamina by which  he
 was unlikely to render effective service, upon returning  to  duty,
 by reason of the likelihood of early recurrence  of  incapacitating
 back symptoms from uncontrollable causes  resulting  from  military
 service, but which were not likely to recur upon return to civilian
 life.   Emotional  instability  characterized  by   excitable   and
 ineffective   reactions   when   confronted   with   mild   stress,
 undependable judgement, and fluctuating emotional attitudes in  his
 relationships with other people.  He appeared to be predisposed  to
 this type of behavior reaction by  early  parental  influence  that
 were unstable, social relationships marked by impaired  recognition
 of attainments, and a history of impaired health involving  failure
 to accept irremedial defect.  During  the  examination,  it  became
 apparent that he sustained an impairment of  suppressive  capacity,
 and as a result, he tended to avoid all stress.  He was not  likely
 to render effective military service at  that  time.   The  medical
 doctor recommended that he be considered for  appearance  before  a
 Board of Officers (BO) with a view toward his separation  from  the
 Air Force.


 On 2 Jun 51, applicant’s commander recommended he appear  before  a
 BO to determine whether  or  not  he  was  unsuitable  for  further
 retention  in  the  Air  Force.   The  following  information   was
 furnished  to  substantiate  this  recommendation:   The  applicant
 claimed that he could only march  in  formation  for  approximately
 three consecutive blocks without severe back pains which forced him
 to leave the formation.  He stated that he sleeps poorly, is unable
 to perform exercises and rough riding trucks cause him unusual back
 pains.  Because all attempts to rehabilitate him proved futile,  it
 was recommended that he be discharged from  the  military  service.
 He  was  interviewed  several  times  in  an  effort  to   make   a
 satisfactory airman of him.  He stated that he would like  to  stay
 in the Air Force if he could get  medical  treatment  resulting  in
 relief from his back pains but that he was unable  to  perform  his
 assigned duties. He was emphatic when he stated his willingness  to
 perform as desired and equally positive that the resultant pain was
 too great to bear.


 On 7 Jun 51, the  applicant  appeared  before  a  BO  investigating
 whether or not he was inapt or unsuitable for further retention  in
 the military.  The applicant testified that the  way  things  stand
 now, he has to be discharged; he just cannot do the training unless
 he has something done.  To the best of his  knowledge  and  belief,
 all the evidence that has been presented in his case  is  true  and
 correct.  He hurt his back and got paid by insurance.  He  did  not
 tell the doctor that he had a back injury because  the  doctor  did
 not ask him.  He told the doctor about his foot.  A boulder fell on
 his foot and cut a tendon in two.  He fell off a wall  and  injured
 his back.  It gave him trouble before he came in the service.


 The BO found the applicant  was  unsuitable  for  further  military
 service because of lack of physical stamina and recommended that he
 be discharged from the Air Force because of  unsuitability  with  a
 general discharge.


 On 20 Jun 51, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under
 the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10  (Unsuitability)  with  a   general
 discharge in the grade of private.  He was credited with  2  months
 and 10 days of total active service.


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


 _________________________________________________________________


 AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC), Separation
 Procedures  Section,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
 indicated that based  upon  the  documentation  in  the  file,  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.  If the applicant were discharged under  today’s  rules,
 he would receive an uncharacterized  entry  level  separation.   He
 could even receive a fraudulent entry for withholding  his  medical
 history.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify
 any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an  upgrade  of  his
 discharge.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends his  records  remain  the
 same and the request be denied.


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


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  applicant  on
 15 Jun 01 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no  response
 has been received by this office.


 On 3 Aug 01, a  copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
 applicant for review and response.  In addition, he  was  requested
 to provide information pertaining to his activities  since  leaving
 the service (see Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been
 received by this office.


 _________________________________________________________________


 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
 careful consideration of the circumstances of this case, we are not
 persuaded that the discharge action was in error  or  unjust.   The
 evidence of record supports  the  stated  reasons  for  applicant’s
 discharge, i.e., lack of  physical  stamina  and  the  unsuccessful
 attempts  to  rehabilitate  him.   We  note  that   under   today’s
 standards, he would have received an  uncharacterized  entry  level
 separation.  Further, he could have received a fraudulent entry for
 withholding  his  medical  history.   Therefore,  in  our  opinion,
 responsible officials applied appropriate  standards  in  effecting
 the  applicant’s  involuntary  separation,  and  we  did  not  find
 persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated at the
 time of his discharge.  Based on a  review  of  the  limited  post-
 service evidence provided and in view of the contents  of  the  FBI
 Identification Record, we are not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of
 applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis  of  clemency.   In
 view of the foregoing, and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
 contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to  recommend  favorable
 action on the applicant’s request.


 _________________________________________________________________


 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 13 November 2001, under the provisions of  Air
 Force Instruction 36-2603:


                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member


 The following documentary evidence was considered:


      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 May 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 01.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 01.




                                    THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                    Vice Chair