RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03432

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s  records  be  corrected  to  entitle  her  to  a  widow’s
pension; his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded; and, the time lost  be
reviewed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has a minor child and has no income since her husband’s death.  She  has
filed for a widow’s pension and badly needs help.  She does  not  understand
what the dates and abbreviations mean in the Remarks Section of his DD  Form
214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  her  late  husband’s
death certificate and DD Form 214.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The member enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  27  October  1954  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  airman
third class.

The former member was convicted by a Special Court Martial for  two  periods
of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 27 June 1956 until  on
or about 10 August 1956, and from on or about 22 October 1956  until  on  or
about 22 October 1956.   He  was  sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge,
forfeitures of $65 per month for six months, and confinement at  hard  labor
for six  months  (three  previous  convictions  were  considered).   He  was
discharged on 15 April 1957, with a BCD.  He completed  1  year,  7  months,
and 18 days of active service.  His DD Form 214, issued upon his  discharge,
reflects 301 days lost time.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the former member’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared
by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request to upgrade her late  husband’s
discharge be denied.  AFPC/DPPRS states, in part,  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  In addition,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted  any
new evidence or identified any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  There are no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the
discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPTR states, in part, that there is neither any evidence of  error  or
injustice, nor any basis in law to grant applicant’s request for  a  widow’s
pension (i.e., Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity).   The  member  did  not
have the required years of service or a medical disability  to  be  eligible
for retirement and was discharged.  The law does not provide an  annuity  to
a widow of a discharged member.

The AFPC/DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPW recommends the applicant’s request that all lost  time  be  deleted
from her late husband’s record be denied.  AFPC/DPW states,  in  part,  that
the member’s days of lost time  for  all  incidents  during  his  enlistment
totaled  406,  rather  than  301.   Since  the   record   of   court-martial
proceedings support 406  days  of  lost  time,  they  recommend  AFPC/DPPRSP
correct his DD Form 214 to reflect 406 days of lost time.

The AFPC/DPW evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 10 May 2002 for review and response within 30  days.   However,
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 error or injustice.

      a.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and  noting  the
applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or  injustice.
 In this respect, we note that the servicemember’s discharge appears  to  be
in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the  time
of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.   In
addition,  there  is  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  her  late  husband’s
separation was inappropriate.   There  being  insufficient  evidence  of  an
error or injustice, we find no compelling basis  to  warrant  upgrading  the
former member’s discharge.

      b.  With regard to applicant’s request  for  a  widow’s  pension,  the
former servicemember did not have the required 20  years  of  service  or  a
medical disability to be eligible for retirement.  Therefore, there  are  no
provisions in the law that would entitle her to a survivor benefit annuity.

4.  We noted AFPC/DPW’s recommendation to  change  the  former  member’s  DD
Form 214 to reflect 406 days of lost time rather than  301  days.   However,
at this point in time we do not believe it would serve  any  useful  purpose
to make this change on the deceased former member’s DD Form 214.

5.  In regard to the applicant’s question regarding dates  on  the  DD  Form
214:  27 October 1954 reflects  the  date  the  former  member  entered  the
service; 15 April 1955 is the date he was demoted to  the  grade  of  airman
basic (A/B); and 15 April 1957 is the date he was discharged  from  the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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  Docket  Number  01-03432  in
Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 18 Jan 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 22 Apr 02.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.



                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair