RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01746
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received a hardship discharge.  Prior to  his  discharge,  he
was experiencing family problems and was needed at home.  He was advised  by
his commander to request an undesirable discharge so he could be  discharged
from the service faster.  He feels it is unfair for him to carry the  stigma
of an undesirable discharge and would like to have it changed.

In support of his request, he submits a personal statement, and 4  character
references.   Applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 May 1951, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.

On 10 September 1951, he failed to report that  a  member  was  operating  a
government vehicle while  intoxicated  and  that  he  was  a  party  to  the
circumstances leading to this offense by purchasing three (3) cans of  beer.
 For this incident, he was disciplined under Article 15 and was directed  to
report to the Dining Hall each day for a period of two  (2)  weeks  for  two
(2) hours of extra duty.

On 18 November 1951, he  was  charged  with  violating  curfew  regulations,
entering an off-limits area and illegally  entering  the  Motor  Pool  area.
For this incident, he was disciplined under Article 15 and  was  reduced  to
the grade of private (E-2) and reprimanded.

On 18 April 1952, the applicant was convicted by Summary  Court-Martial  for
violation of Article 134, disorderly in station.  For this incident, he  was
sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 30 days  and  to  forfeit  fifty-
three ($53.00) dollars of his pay.

On 23 April 1953, he was convicted by Summary  Court-Martial  for  violation
of Article 86, Absent Without Leave (AWOL), from 31 March 1953 to  20  April
1953.  For this incident, he was confined at hard labor for 25 days and  was
ordered to forfeit thirty ($30.00) dollars of his pay.

From 31 March 1953 to 19 April 1953, he was charged with AWOL.

From 20 July 1953 to 21 July 1953, he  was  charged  with  AWOL.   For  this
incident, he was ordered to perform extra duty two hours  per  day  from  21
July through 1 August 1953.

On 30 September 1953, he was charged with  speeding  and  drunkenness.   For
this incident he was ordered to perform extra duty two hours per  day,  from
30 September through 9 October 1953.

From 7 December 1953 to 15 December 1953, he was charged with AWOL.

On  19  November  1953,  discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).   The  applicant  was  advised  of  his
rights  in  the  matter  and  that  an  undesirable   discharge   would   be
recommended.  On 26 January 1954, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
foregoing and of his rights in the matter.  After consulting legal  counsel,
he waived his right to a Board of Officers  hearing  and  acknowledged  that
his separation from the Air Force  might  be  under  conditions  other  than
honorable and he could receive an undesirable discharge.

On 19 February 1954, the applicant was discharged under the  provisions  of
AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge.  He was credited with
2 years, 3 months and 22 days total active service. Time lost was 152  days
due to AWOL and confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI provided an investigative report
pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

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:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and FBI  report  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 July 2001 and 9 October 2001 for review and response  within
30 days.  As of this  date,  this  office  has  received  no  response  (see
Exhibits D and E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
his undesirable discharge should be upgraded  to  general  (under  honorable
conditions).  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,  we  do  not
find these uncorroborated assertions, in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale  provided  by
the  Air  Force.   We  found  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization  of
applicant's discharge. It appears that  the  responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting the discharge, and the applicant has  not
provided convincing evidence demonstrating that pertinent  regulations  were
violated or that he was not afforded all the rights  to  which  entitled  at
the time of discharge. Therefore, we agree with the recommendations  of  the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  We note that the applicant  provided  some
character references pertaining to  his  post-service  activities;  however,
the Board does not believe this evidence is sufficient to warrant  clemency.
 It has been more than 50 years since the applicant’s separation.   In  view
of this fact, we are not  inclined  to  exercise  clemency  in  this  matter
without the submission of more expansive evidence of the  applicant’s  post-
service activities and testimonials by friends and responsible citizens  who
know him.  In the absence of such evidence, the applicant’s request  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 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 5 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 June 2001 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 July 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 August 2001.
      Exhibit E.  Letter,  AFBCMR,  dated  9  October  2001,  w/FBI
Report.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair