RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01577
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was administered an inequitable  discharge  based  on  only  one  day  of
excess leave.  When he reported for duty he was  told  that  he  was  Absent
Without Leave.

Since his discharge, he has become  an  honorable  member  of  the  civilian
community.  He has  completed  an  Associate  in  General  Studies  and  has
climbed up the corporate ladder  to  a  management  position  of  trust  and
respect with General Motors Corporation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) on 21 August 1963 for a period of 4 years.

On 17 January 1964, the applicant  failed  to  carry  out  the  instructions
during an  inspection  of  his  dormitory  room.   For  this  incident,  his
superiors counseled him.

On 20 January 1964, he  failed  to  go  to  his  place  of  duty,  the  Base
Commissary, at  the  appointed  time.   For  this  incident,  his  superiors
counseled him.

On 22 January 1964, he failed to  repair  for  scheduled  training  classes.
For this incident, he received a letter of reprimand.

On 4 February 1964, nonjudicial punishment  was  imposed  on  the  applicant
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice  (UMCJ)  because,  on  or
about 3 February 1964, he had failed to go to his appointed  place  of  duty
and had made a false official statement to his NCOIC, and,  on  or  about  4
February 1964, he had failed to go to his  appointed  place  of  duty.   The
applicant was reduced to the grade  of  airman  basic,  ordered  to  perform
extra duty for 14 days, restricted to the limits of the base  for  14  days,
and ordered to forfeit $19.00 of his pay per month for two months.

On 5 March  1964,  the  applicant  failed  to  go  to  his  place  of  duty.
Nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the applicant under Article 15,  UCMJ.
  The  punishment  consisted  of  the  forfeiture  of  $19.00  of  his  pay,
restriction to the station for a 14-day period and 14 days of extra duty.

On 15 March 1964, in an  attempt  to  rehabilitate  the  applicant,  he  was
transferred from the Base Commissary to the Base Clothing Sales  Store.   He
was rated a “Marginal Performer” on a performance report rendered on him  at
this time.

On 11 May 1964, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place  of  duty,
the Base Clothing Sales Store.  For this offense he was tried by  a  Summary
Court Martial, found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard  labor  for
29 days and forfeiture of $55.00.

On 20 May 1964, his supervisor  rendered  a  Letter  of  Evaluation  on  the
applicant relating his failures to report for work  on  time  and  his  less
than satisfactory  duty  performance.   His  supervisor  recommended  he  be
removed from on-the-job training and from the Air Force.

On 1 June 1964, the applicant’s commander notified  the  applicant  that  he
intended to recommend his separation  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17
because  of   his   inaptitude,   apathy,   inability   to   expend   effort
constructively, and  frequent  involvement  with  military  authority.   The
applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and  that  an  undesirable
discharge would be recommended.  On 2 June 1964, the applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the foregoing and of his rights in the matter.  After  consulting
counsel, he waived his right to a Board of Officers hearing and submitted  a
statement in extenuation and mitigation,  requesting  a  general  discharge.
On 4 June 1964, the commander initiated a recommendation that the  applicant
be discharged with an undesirable discharge.  On  9  June  1994,  the  group
commander recommended that the proposed separation be approved but that  the
applicant be given a General Discharge certificate.  On 24  June  1964,  the
discharge authority approved the recommendation for separation and  directed
that the applicant be issued a General Discharge certificate.

On 30 June 1964, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of  AFR
39-17 (Unfitness), with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.
He was credited with 9 months and 15 days total active service.  Time  lost
was 25 days due to confinement.

On 21 August 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI)  advised  they
were unable to locate any arrest records on the applicant (see Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the  application  and
state that based upon documentation in the file, they believe the  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.   They  further  state  that  the  applicant  has  not
provided any new evidence  or  identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  27
July 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We noted  the  documentation  the
applicant provided regarding his  post-service  activities  since  his  1964
general discharge.  The evidence indicates that in the years  following  his
separation, the applicant conducted his affairs in a responsible manner  and
is respected by his employer.  We commend the applicant’s  success  in  this
regard.  However, the Board majority does not believe the evidence  provided
is sufficient to warrant clemency in the form of an honorable  discharge  in
view of the short period of time the applicant served and  the  multiplicity
and seriousness of his infractions against the good order and discipline  of
the service.  Should the applicant provide more expansive evidence of  post-
service activities and testimonials by friends and responsible citizens  who
know him, we would be willing to  reconsider  his  petition.   Without  such
evidence,  the  Board  majority  finds  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 11 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

Ms. Gordon and Mr. Topolski voted to deny the application,  Mr. Carey  voted
to grant the applicant’s request  but  elected  not  to  submit  a  minority
report.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 June 2001 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 July 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 July 2001.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                   MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MRB

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of, Docket Number 01-01577

      I have carefully reviewed all of the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request
should be denied.

      I believe that while the general (under honorable conditions)
discharge was appropriate at the time, the applicant has suffered its
effects for over 37 years and it would be an injustice for him to continue
to do so.  From the evidence presented before me, it appears the applicant
holds a position of trustworthiness and is a respected and loyal employee
with General Motors for over 35 years.  I believe that the applicant has
overcome his youthful indiscretions and has prospered both personally and
professionally and should not continue to suffer the adverse effects of his
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

      In view of the above, as a matter of clemency, I believe that the
characterization of the applicant’s service should be upgraded to
honorable.  In addition, although not recommended by the minority member,
it is my opinion the evidence supports further clemency in the form of a
change to the reason for the applicant’s separation from “Unfitness” to
something that carries a less derogatory connotation.


      Accordingly, the applicant’s records should be corrected as indicated
on the Memorandum for the Chief of Staff.












     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR 01-01577




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 30 June 1964, he was honorably
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14, paragraph 2 (Convenience of
the Government – By USAF Directive – Individual Release), with a separation
designation number (SDN) of 21L; and, was issued an Honorable Discharge
certificate.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency