RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01624
            INDEX CODE 110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His other than honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unfair and should be upgraded based on clemency.

The applicant states  that  while  assigned  to  Glasgow  AFB,  Montana,  he
purchased a hunting rifle that later turned-out to be stolen  property.   As
a result, he was charged with possession of stolen  property  and  sentenced
to one year in prison.  In spite of this incident, his military service  was
truly honorable as evidenced by his three previous performance reports  that
rate him as outstanding/exceptional.  He  has  carried  the  burden  of  the
discharge for the past 36 years which is enough punishment.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from a  couple  whom
he awoke when their house was on fire and a copy of his DD Form  214,  Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 July 1961, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.

On 15 January 1964, the commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment  against
the applicant under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ) for violating Article 31 (i.e., using disrespectful language  towards
his superior).  The punishment consisted of a reduction in grade  to  airman
third class and forfeiture of $28.00.

From 26  August  1964  to  17  December  1964,  based  on  a  grand  larceny
conviction, the  applicant  served  97  days  in  the  Valley  County  Jail,
Glasgow, MT, and 17 days in the Deer Lodge Penitentiary.

The specific facts leading to the applicant’s discharge are not available.

On  17  December  1964,  the  applicant  was  discharged  under  other  than
honorable conditions under the provisions of  AFR  39-22.   He  completed  3
years, 1 month and 1 day of active service, with 112 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, has provided an Investigative Report  that  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application  and
states that based upon the lack of documentation in the file,  they  believe
the discharge must have been consistent with the procedural and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   The  applicant
provides no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of his 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 Air Force evaluation and states the following:

      a.    He was transferred from  the  First  Sergeant’s  office  to  the
records section for a period of 30 days.  After serving over 90 days in  the
section, he asked when he was going to be  transferred  back  to  the  First
Sergeant’s office and was told, “…when I get good dammed  (sic)  ready,”  to
which he replied, “that better be pretty damn quick.”  For this he  received
the Article 15.

      b.    The menacing charge on his FBI report was based on  an  incident
that involved a town drunk at a tavern.  The individual walked in  and  said
something about his wife and he pointed his index finger  into  his  stomach
and told him to leave, which he did and later pressed  charges  against  him
with the state police.

       c.     The  trespassing  charge  involved  an   incident   with   his
girlfriend’s father, who called the state police after he  would  not  leave
his girlfriend’s apartment.

      d.    He did write a bad check for  $20;  however,  after  discovering
the error, he made restitution.

The applicant’s complete response 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  his  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 30 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jul 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Oct 01, w/atch.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair