RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01053
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He will make his contentions known at a hearing.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 December 1951, applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force.
Prior to the events under review, he was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
airman second class (A2C/E-3).  Applicant’s grade at time of discharge
was airman basic (AB/E-1).

Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of excellent  from
25 Jan 52 – 12 Feb 52; from 13 Feb  52  –  23  Feb  52,  ratings  were
unknown; and from 27 Feb 52 – 1 Sep 54, ratings were excellent.

On 16 Mar 55, the squadron section commander initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for being  a  habitual  shirker
and malcontent, being belligerent towards all  moves  to  rehabilitate
him, and for his continued series of offenses which  were  detrimental
to good order and military discipline.

On 17 Mar 55, applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  administrative
discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before  a  board
of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings.   He
further acknowledged that he understood that if  his  application  was
approved, that his separation could be  under  conditions  other  than
honorable and that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that
this may deprive him of rights as a veteran  under  both  federal  and
state legislation.

The remaining relevant facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  Examiner’s
brief at Exhibit B.

On 5 Apr 55, he was discharged under the provisions of  AFR  39-17  by
reason of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He  was  credited
with 3 years, 2 months, and 18 days active service (excludes  47  days
of lost time under Art 140, Sec 6a, UCMJ, 1951).

On 23 April 1964, the AFDRB found that neither evidence of record, nor
that  provided  by  the  applicant,  substantiated  an   inequity   or
impropriety, which would justify a  change  in  the  discharge.   They
further concluded that the discharge should not be changed (See  AFDRB
Hearing Records at Exhibit B).

On 1 May 64, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s  request
that his discharge be upgraded to honorable (Exhibit C).

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Separation  Procedures  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the
sound discretion  of  the  discharge  authority  and  the  applicant’s
frequent misconduct warranted the character of  service  given.   They
also noted that the applicant did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 June 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit  F).   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 15 August 2001, the FBI Report of Investigation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment.  At that time, the applicant was
also  invited  to  provide  additional  evidence  pertaining  to   his
activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G).  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  available  facts  contained  in  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we
find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of  the  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.  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.   After
careful consideration of the applicant’s overall  quality  of  service
reflected in the available records and  in  the  absence  of  evidence
relating to his post-service activities and conduct, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 October 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAFCB, dated 1 May 64.
    Exhibit D.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 May 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Aug 01, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair