RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02356
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable and his grade of
staff sergeant (SSgt) be reinstated.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His service records show no convictions, no  Article  15s  and  the
investigation by the Judge Advocate reflected no intent to defraud.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted  unsigned  copies  of
what appears to be extracts of his discharge correspondence.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 May 54, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in
the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four years.   He
was released from active duty and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force
Reserve (AFR) on 19 Dec 1957.  He reenlisted  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 24 Jan 1958, for a period of six years  in  the  grade  of
airman first class.

On 5  Oct  59,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of  AFR
39-17.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were based  on
an established pattern of financial irresponsibility and negligence
and evidence of  habits  and  traits  of  immoral  and  anti-social
trends.  Between 20 May 1959 and 15 Jun 59, the applicant cashed 18
checks totaling $900 for which he had no funds.

AF Form  1226,  Record  of  Previous  Convictions  and  Time  Lost,
reflects applicant was absent without leave (AWOL)  from  26 Dec 58
to 30 Dec 58, and then from 2 Jan  59  until  9  Jan  59.   He  was
apprehended  by  military  authorities  and  returned  to  military
control on  10  Jan  59.   He  was  in  confinement  for  17  days,
10–17 Jan 59.  Applicant was again AWOL on or about 17-18 Jun 59.
On 5 Oct 59, after consulting with counsel, 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  and  did  not  submit  any
statements in his own behalf.   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 2 Nov 59, the Staff Judge Advocate found the  case  file  to  be
legally sufficient to support a discharge  for  unfitness  with  an
undesirable discharge.  On  17  Nov  59,  the  discharge  authority
approved the discharge  for  unfitness  and  directed  that  he  be
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258AF).

On 30 Nov 59, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first
class,  under   the   provisions   of   AFR 39-17,   with   service
characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).  He
was credited with 4 years, 3 months  and  29 days  of  active  duty
service (excludes 32 days of lost time due to three periods of AWOL
and confinement).

Applicant’s DD Form 214 also reflects that he was awarded  the  Air
Force Good Conduct Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award and
the National Defense Service Medal.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They 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 nor did  he  provide  any
facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB found that the applicant’s records did  not  contain
any information or documentation regarding promotion  or  demotion.
They state  that  in  the  absence  of  any  documentation  to  the
contrary, they have no choice but to assume that he was  discharged
in  the  correct  grade.   Based  on   the   lack   of   supporting
documentation, they recommended that  the  applicant’s  request  to
correct his grade be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 16 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30  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 error or injustice.  After a  thorough
review of the available record and applicant's submission, we  find
that the discharge appears to be in compliance with  the  governing
directives and we find no evidence to indicate that his  separation
from the Air Force was inappropriate.   We  noted  the  applicant’s
request to have the grade of staff  sergeant  reinstated;  however,
the staff judge advocate’s review, dated 5 November 1959, indicated
that during  the  processing  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  they
determined the applicant’s promotion to staff  sergeant  was  never
accomplished nor was he paid as a staff sergeant.  Therefore, based
on the available evidence of record and 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 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
02-02356  in  Executive  Session  on  24 October 2002,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Ms. Cheryl Dare, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 02, with atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC DPPRS, dated 8 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Aug 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair