RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00237
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his discharge be upgraded.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
character reference letter, dated 10 January 2002,  and  his  DD  Form  214,
Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9  October  1951  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 23 March 1955, applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for the following reasons:

      On 1 October 1952, the applicant received a summary court-martial  for
failure to repair and  was  demoted  to  airman  basic,  received  45  days’
restriction and was fined $50.

      On 3 June 1953, the applicant received an Article 15  for  failure  to
repair.  He received 2 hours extra duty for 14 days.



      On 11 October 1954, the applicant received an Article 15  for  failure
to repair.  He received 14 days’ restriction.

      On 3 November 1954, the applicant received  a  summary  court  marital
for failure to repair.  He was demoted to airman  basic,  confined  at  hard
labor for 15 days and was fined $30.  Then  he  received  a  special  court-
martial for being absent without leave from  30  December  1954  through  17
January 1955.  He received 3 months’ confinement with  hard  labor  and  was
fined $150.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant was assigned to his organization for approximately 2 years and  11
months.  During that period the flight commander,  his  section  NCOIC,  the
squadron adjutant, and the first sergeant  had  counseled  him  on  numerous
occasions.  Efforts had  been  made  to  isolate  the  applicant’s  problems
whether official or personal, and upon each counseling the applicant  stated
that he had no particular problems and  that  he  would  make  every  effort
toward becoming a satisfactory airman.  The applicant had been  assigned  to
duty  in  the  communications  center   and   had   served   under   various
noncommissioned officers and duty  officers.   At  times  he  performed  his
assigned  duties  well;  however,  his  continued  laxness  and  periods  of
absences resulted in distrust of him by his supervisors.  It  was  necessary
to constantly remind him of his shortcomings as  pertained  to  uniform  and
barracks regulations.  The  commander  further  stated  that  the  applicant
should be eliminated from the Air Force based on his continued violation  of
military law and regulations.

On 23 March 1955, the applicant submitted an application for discharge.   He
indicated that he waived his entitlement to  appear  before  the  board  and
requested discharge without benefit of board proceedings.

On 14 April  1955,  the  commander  approved  the  applicant’s  request  for
discharge.

On 4 May 1955, the applicant’s discharge was approved.

Applicant was discharged on 10 May 1955, in the grade of airman  basic  with
an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.   He  served  a
total of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days  of  total  active  military  service
with 111 days of lost time.

On 22 June 1955, the Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his  undesirable  discharge
to an honorable discharge.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to  locate  an  arrest
record on basis of information furnished (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicate  that   based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  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 did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of
his discharge.  He has filed a timely request.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 March 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within  thirty  (30)  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

On 19 March 2002, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within fourteen  (14)  days.   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  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the
applicant’s discharge.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of  record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the  victim  of  either  an
error  or  an  injustice.   The  discharge  apparently  complied  with   the
governing regulation in effect at  that  time;  therefore,  we  believe  his
separation was appropriate.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________






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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00237
in Executive Session on 18 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 December 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 February 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 March 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 March 2002.




                                ROGER E. WILLMETH
                                Panel Chair