RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03696
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to the incident (failure  to  report  to  station  in  a  timely
manner) that led to his separation, no other such  incident  had  ever
taken place.  Therefore, a discharge under other than “honorable”  was
harsh.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 2 Jan 53 for a period of 4 years and was honorably discharged on 12
Dec 56 in the grade of airman first class (permanent).  He  reenlisted
on 13 Dec 56 for a period of 6 years.

On 27 Jun 57, the applicant received an Article  15  for  speeding  on
base, in violation of Article 134,  UCMJ,  for  which  his  punishment
consisted of 2 hours of extra duty a day for 14 days.

On 27 Aug 59, the applicant was tried before a  summary  court-martial
at McGuire AFB.  The specifications and charges were as follows:   (1)
Being absent without  authority  from  his  appointed  place  of  duty
without proper authority, on or  about  15 Aug  59,  in  violation  of
Article 86, UCMJ.  (2) Disobeying a lawful order to report  for  duty,
on or about 18 Aug 59, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  He was found
guilty and sentenced to a reduction in grade from airman  first  class
to airman third class, forfeiture of $45.00 and  restriction  to  base
for 10 days.  The sentence was approved by the convening authority  on
27 Aug 59.

On 3 Nov 59, the applicant was tried before a summary court-martial at
McGuire AFB.  The  specification  and  charge  was  for  being  absent
without authority from his organization (AWOL), on or about 23 Oct  59
until on or about 28 Oct 59, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He was
found guilty and sentenced to a reduction in grade from  airman  third
class to airman basic, forfeiture of $40.00 and  confinement  at  hard
labor for 30  days.   The  sentence  was  approved  by  the  convening
authority on 3 Nov 59.

On 12 Jan 60, the applicant received notification that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge.  The reason for  this  action  was  due  to
defective attitudes as evidenced by his continued failure to meet  the
obligations  and  responsibilities  of  the  military  service.    The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.  On 26 Jan 60,  an
evaluation officer indicated he  had  interviewed  and  counseled  the
applicant concerning his rights.  The applicant declined to submit any
written statements in his behalf.  The  evaluation  officer  indicated
that the applicant’s service did not appear to  warrant  an  honorable
discharge.   On  29 Jan  60,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation and directed that the  applicant  be  issued  a
general discharge.

The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions  (general)  on
8 Feb 60 under the provisions of AFR 39-16  (unsuitability).   He  had
completed a total of 6 years, 11 months and 28 days and was serving in
the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)  at  the  time  of  discharge.   The
applicant had 30 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the applicant’s file, DPPRS  believes  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation in effect at the time.   DPPRS  stated  that  the
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   Additionally,
the  applicant  provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of   the
discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  was
young and foolish and did not know how to handle the problems  he  was
faced with.  In spite of his faults, he served his Country to the best
of his ability.  He  has  lived  his  life  as  a  model  citizen  and
therefore asks for clemency.  In support of his request,  a  character
reference  statement  was   submitted.    The   applicant’s   complete
submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file
was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority,  or  that  his  service  warranted  a  better
characterization than  the  one  he  received.   After  reviewing  the
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge, we do not find the characterization of his discharge unduly
harsh for the numerous offenses committed.  Although  applicant’s  age
and immaturity may have been contributing factors to his lack of  good
judgment,  they  do  not,  in  our  opinion,  excuse  his  misconduct.
Additionally, other than his own assertions, the applicant provided no
documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good
citizenship in the community since his  discharge.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in the form of  an
upgrade to the applicant’s discharge at this time.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 13 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket No. 02-03696:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from Applicant and the DAV, undated.




                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair