RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02109
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge he received was unjust and the penalty  was  too  severe
for the conditions involved.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
with three letters of support.  The applicant’s  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

With the consent of the applicant’s father, he [applicant]  contracted
his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jan 52, at the age of 16,
for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade
of airman third class, with an effective date of rank of  25  Feb  52.
He was reduced to the grade of airman basic, with an effective date of
rank of 21 Jun 52, pursuant to a summary court-martial conviction.

On 17 Oct 52, applicant was tried before a  summary  court-martial  at
Parks AFB, CA.  He pled guilty to being AWOL during the periods 25 Jul-
7 Aug 52 (14 days); 8-14 Aug 52 (7 days); 3-5 Sep 52 (3 days); and 13-
15 Oct 52 (3 days).  At the time, applicant had two  previous  summary
court-martial convictions, also for being AWOL.  One prior  conviction
was for a 20 day  (5-24  Jul  52)  AWOL  -  sentence  consisted  of  a
reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of $30.00;  and,
the other conviction was for an 11 day (6-16 Jun 52) AWOL  -  sentence
consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days and  forfeiture  of
$55.00.  The Oct 52 summary court-martial sentenced the  applicant  to
confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of  $50.00.   The
sentence was approved by the convening authority on 17 Oct 52.

On 13 Oct 52, a Board of Officers convened at Parks AFB, CA,  for  the
purpose of determining whether or not the applicant was totally  unfit
for further retention in the military service under the provisions  of
AFR 39-17.  On 23 Oct  52,  the  Board  of  Officers  recommended  the
applicant be discharged from the  service  because  of  unfitness  and
furnished an undesirable discharge.   On  10  Nov  52,  the  applicant
received an undesirable discharge under the provisions  of  AFR  39-17
(unfitness).  He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and  was
serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time  of  discharge.
He had 113 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached  at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   DPPRS  indicated
that the applicant received three summary  court-martial  convictions.
His records also indicate that he was charged with theft, to include a
rubber  stamp  reading  “over  21”  which  was  the  property  of  the
government and clothing belonging to another airman.  Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS stated that the applicant did not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.   He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at  Exhibit
D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  was
only 16 years of age when he entered the Air Force on 7 Jan 52.  Since
he was a minor, the discharge he received was unjust and too severe  a
penalty for the conditions involved while on active duty.  He requests
that all reasonable doubt in this matter be resolved in his favor  and
his  discharge  be  upgraded  to  under  honorable  conditions.    The
applicant has provided a copy of his birth certificate, which  reveals
his date of birth as 2 Sep 35 rather than 2 Sep 34.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Although the applicant  provided
documentation    regarding    his    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments, we find this information  to  be  of  limited  scope.
After  reviewing  applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances
surrounding the discharge in 1952, it appears  the  discharge  was  in
compliance with the governing Air Force  regulation  and  we  find  no
evidence to indicate that  his  separation  from  the  Air  Force  was
inappropriate.  While it appears that  the  applicant  was  improperly
enlisted at the age of 16 with parental consent, there is  nothing  in
the record to indicate that he was unable to  discern  the  difference
between right from wrong and to adhere to the the right.  In  view  of
the foregoing  and  in  the  absence  of  more  expansive  documentary
evidence pertaining to his post  service  activities  showing  he  has
maintained the standards of good citizenship over an  extended  period
of time, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Identification Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jul o2.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02, and
               AFBCMR, dated 18 Sep 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 13 Aug 02, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair