RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00224
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL: THE AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge; narrative reason for separation changed to  convenience
of the government, with a corresponding separation program designator and  a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “1. ”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume  that
the service acted correctly in  characterizing  his  service  as  less  than
honorable does not apply to his case  because  under  current  standards  he
would not receive the type of discharge he did.  He states that he has  been
an outstanding citizen since his discharge.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  three  (3)  character
references.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by  fire  in  1973  at
the  National  Personnel  Record  Center  (NPRC).   Therefore,   the   facts
surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot be verified.

The available records reflect that the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 8 June 1955 in the grade of airman basic  for  a  period  of  4
years.

The records also reflect he was in civil confinement for 3  days  due  to  a
traffic violation in 1958.  He was  reduced  from  airman  second  class  to
airman third class effective 17 December 1957.

Applicant was discharged on 3 February 1958, in the grade  of  airman  third
class, with service characterized as general (under  honorable  conditions),
in accordance with AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).    He completed 2 years, 7  months
and 26 days of total active duty service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant’s  records
show that he was in civil confinement for 3 days due to a traffic  violation
in 1958.  He was reduced from airman second  class  to  airman  third  class
effective 17 December 1957.  Based upon the lack  of  documentation  in  the
file, they  believe  the  discharge  must  have  been  consistent  with  the
procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge   regulation.
Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of   the
discharge authority.

Even though  the  applicant’s  records  show  no  reason  for  the  member’s
demotion or discharge, the applicant also did not submit  any  new  evidence
or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  Additionally, he provided character statements,  but  no  facts
warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant  was  discharged  for  unfitness  in
accordance with AFR 39-17 on 3 February  1958,  after  serving  2  years,  7
months and 26 days active service.  As per Air Force policy at the  time  of
his discharge his reenlistment eligibility status is correct and should  not
be changed.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________








APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 October  2002,  copies  of  the  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant and counsel for review and response within thirty (30)  days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 31 October 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 an error or an injustice.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case.   After  careful
consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence  of  record,
we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice  to  warrant  corrective
action with respect to his requests.  The facts and opinions stated  in  the
advisory opinions appear to be based on the  available  evidence  of  record
and have not been rebutted by applicant.  The applicant’s personnel  records
appear to have been destroyed by fire and we do not know  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation.   In  the  absence  of  these  circumstances  we
cannot determine whether or not he would have  received  the  same  type  of
discharge under current standards.  We also find  insufficient  evidence  to
warrant a recommendation that the discharge be  upgraded  on  the  basis  of
clemency.  We have considered the applicant’s available evidence related  to
post-service  activities  and   accomplishments;   however,   without   more
information  regarding  the  events  which  precipitated   the   applicant’s
discharge, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.   In  view  of  our
recommendation regarding the applicant’s discharge, his  remaining  requests
for a change in narrative reason for discharge and corresponding SPD and  RE
codes are moot issues.  Absent persuasive evidence that  the  applicant  was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to  disturb  the
existing record.  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 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  02-00224
in Executive Session on 21 November 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 January 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 March 2002,
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 October 2002,
                   w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 October 2002.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 October 2002, w/atch.




                                ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                Panel Chair