RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03389


            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told at the time of his court-martial not to  say  anything  or
they would give him a dishonorable discharge and that if he didn’t say
anything he would just receive disciplinary action.   After  discharge
he contacted the Adjutant General’s office, and filled out a  DD  Form
293 and sent it back, but he never heard from anyone.

He has been making a living and raising  his  five  children,  college
education, and now would like to resolve this issue.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits letters from the  National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 27 Jun 62, and a letter to  the
Adjutant General’s office, dated 4 Jun 62.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 July 1959, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic  (E-1).   Prior  to  the  events  under  review,
applicant was promoted to the grade of airman  third  class  (A3C/E-2)
with a date of rank (DOR)  and  effective  date  of  23 October  1959.
Applicant’s grade at the time of discharge  was  airman  basic  (E-1),
with a DOR and effective date of 2 September 1960.

On 17 April 1961,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-
17, para 4a.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were due to
applicant’s failure to maintain the standards of  a  good  airman  and
frequent involvement of a dishonorable nature with civil and  military
authorities, as evidenced by the following specific incidents:

On 2 Sep 60, applicant was  convicted  by  Summary  Court-Martial  for
purchasing  tax-free  items  for  persons  not  authorized.   He   was
sentenced to a reduction in grade to airman basic  and  forfeiture  of
$60.

On 17 Sep 60, applicant was apprehended by  the  military  police  for
violation of curfew hours.  He  was  punished  under  Article  15  and
restricted to the base for 14 days.

On 5 Oct 60, applicant was placed on the Control Roster for  receiving
a derogatory AF Form 75 (Airman Performance Report).

On or about 23 Dec 60, applicant was apprehended by civil  authorities
while assisting in an attempted sale of a pistol, property of  the  U.
S. Government.  He was restricted to the confines of the base.

On 10 Jan 61, applicant attempted to break  restriction  but  was  not
allowed by military police.  On 12 Jan 61, he was observed outside the
checkpoint gate.

On 3 Mar 61,  applicant  broke  restriction  and  was  apprehended  by
military police in an off-limit house of prostitution.

On 17 April 1961, 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.

On 1 June 1961, the wing commander recommended approval  of  Discharge
for Unfitness, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.  On 8 June 1961, the
discharge authority approved the Discharge for Unfitness.

On 20 June 1961, he was discharged under the provisions of  AFR  39-17
by reason  of  unfitness,  with  an  undesirable  discharge.   He  was
credited with 1 year, 11 months and 15 days of active service.

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

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s  request  and  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.
They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same
and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the  Air  Force  evaluation  by  providing  his
account of the events leading up to his discharge.  He indicates  that
he would be willing to make a personal  appearance  to  the  Board  to
discuss his side of the story.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

On 25 February 2002, 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.  The  discharge  appears
to be in compliance with the governing AFI and we find no evidence  to
indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  It
appears that responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and we do not find  persuasive  evidence  to
indicate that pertinent regulations were violated  or  that  applicant
was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled  at  the  time  of
discharge.

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  post-
service activities  and  accomplishments.   Therefore,  based  on  the
available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably
consider this application.

5.  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  AFBCMR
Docket Number 01-03389 in Executive Session on 9 April 2002, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Dec 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair