RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02423
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In  the  applicant’s  request   for   reconsideration,   he   requests
reinstatement in the Air Force and partial compensation for a  pilot’s
career.

He be given a letter of apology for the prejudicial  handling  of  his
case in 1960.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 December 1953, the applicant was appointed a  second  lieutenant
in the United States Air Force (Temporary).  He  was  integrated  into
the Regular Air Force on 31 July 1957 and was  progressively  promoted
to the grade of first lieutenant, with an effective date  of  31  July
1957 and with a date of rank of 23 May 1957.

On 10 December 1959, the applicant received notification that  he  was
being recommended for elimination from the service due to his lack  of
personal  responsibility  and  conduct  incompatible  with  Air  Force
standards.  The reasons for this action are as follows:

      -- On 5 December 1958, he was  administered  a  notification  of
“Failure to Comply” for  being  late  for  scheduled  flights  on  two
separate occasions.

      -- On 22 January 1959, he  was  administered  an  Administrative
Reprimand for unsatisfactory crew performance and a complete disregard
of instructions received and lack of initiative.

      -- On  16  February  1959,  he  was  administered  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for issuing a check payable to the ---  AFB  Officer’s
Mess which was returned for insufficient funds.

      -- On 22 June 1959, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's
intent to impose  nonjudicial  punishment  (Article  15)  for  conduct
unbecoming an officer  and  a  gentleman,  assault  on  a  female  and
resisting  apprehension.   Applicant  elected  nonjudicial  punishment
under Article 15.  On 16 July  1959,  after  considering  all  matters
presented to him, the commander found that the  applicant  did  commit
one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment
consisting of a reprimand and forfeiture of  $195.00.   Applicant  did
not appeal the punishment.

On 10 December 1959, the applicant acknowledged  the  notification  of
recommendation of elimination from the service, that he was  counseled
by the base staff judge advocate, and he submitted a statement in  his
behalf.

The applicant was notified that he was not recommended  for  promotion
to the grade of captain on 10 September 1959.   As  a  result  of  his
nonselection, he became a “deferred officer” in his permanent grade of
first lieutenant.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of deferment  on
3 December 1959.  On 13 January 1960, the applicant was notified  that
he was being placed on the Officer Control Roster due to his  deferred
status and a referral Officer Effectiveness Report  (OER),  closing  2
February 1959.

On 5 January 1960, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for failure to  go  at  the
proper time to his appointed place of duty,  on  or  about  7 December
1959.  On 13 January 1960, applicant acknowledged receipt and  elected
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 and submitted a  statement  in
his behalf. After  considering  all  matters  presented  to  him,  the
commander found that the applicant did  commit  one  or  more  of  the
offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment of a forfeiture of
$195.00 and a reprimand.  Applicant’s appeal  of  the  punishment  was
denied.

The applicant was referred to a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  for
neurological evaluation regarding a possible post-concussion syndrome.
 This evaluation was requested specifically  because  he  was  in  the
process of being separated from the  service.   A  Medical  Evaluation
Board (MEB) was convened on 2 October 1959  and  their  diagnosis  and
findings were: Encephalopathy due to trauma, asymptomatic,  manifested
by Babinski reflex on the right and an abnormal  electro-encephalogram
indicative of a major convulsive disorder - head trauma  in  1953  and
1955,  with  1955  as  the  approximate  date  of  origin.   The   MEB
recommended referral to the Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB).   A  PEB
was convened on 2 October 1959 and their diagnosis was the same as the
MEB.  In addition, the  PEB  found  the  applicant  fit  for  military
service and recommended return to duty.  The case was reviewed by  the
Air Force Personnel Board and returned to the  Strategic  Air  Command
(SAC) on 3 February 1960 recommending the applicant  appear  before  a
Board of Inquiry to show cause why he should not  be  discharged  from
all appointments held in the Air Force.

On 8 March 1960, the applicant was notified that he  was  selected  to
show cause why his Regular commission in the Air Force should  not  be
revoked.  On 14 March 1960, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
notification and his desire to appear before the Board of Inquiry with
civilian counsel.  On 1 April 1960, the applicant was provided  copies
of the orders appointing the Board of Inquiry and  requested  that  he
acknowledge receipt indicating any challenges of the Board Members  at
that time.  On 5 April 1960, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
orders and indicated “no challenges at this time.”

On 14 April 1960, the Board of Inquiry convened at ---  AFB,  TX,  and
the   applicant   was   represented   by   military   counsel.     The
applicant/counsel was given the opportunity to  challenge  any  voting
member of the board.  After questioning the  voting  members,  counsel
indicated that the applicant was satisfied with the composition of the
board.  The applicant submitted many letters  of  citation  concerning
his duty performance, character and value as a fighter pilot.  Several
witnesses testified in his behalf.  The Board of Inquiry rendered  the
following findings and recommended  that  he  be  given  an  honorable
discharge:

      a.  The applicant failed to demonstrate acceptable standards  of
professional proficiency required of an officer of his grade in  that,
on 7 November 1958, he received  an  unsatisfactory  rating  on  check
lists and co-pilot’s duties in the B-47 aircraft; and in that,  on  14
January 1959, he received an unsatisfactory  rating  on  his  pre-solo
check in the B-47 aircraft; and in that, during the period 1  February
1958 to 2 February 1959, his attitude toward his  assigned  duties  as
pilot was one of carelessness and lack of initiative.

      b.  The applicant had a  record  of  marginal  service  over  an
extended period of time as  evidenced  by  his  Officer  Effectiveness
Reports covering two assignments and prepared by two different  rating
officers for the period 1 June 1957 to 31 January 1958 and 1  February
1958 to 2 February 1959.

      c.  The applicant  demonstrated  financial  irresponsibility  in
that, on 27 December 1958, he issued a check in the amount  of  $10.00
to the Officers’ Open Mess, --- AFB, which check was returned  due  to
insufficient funds.

       d.   The  applicant  demonstrated  conduct  incompatible   with
exemplary standards of  personal  conduct,  character,  and  integrity
(refer to the Board of Inquiry Report of Proceedings for details).

On 19 May 1960, after reviewing the entire record and considering  all
aspects of the case, the Air Force Personnel Board concurred with  the
findings and recommendations of  the  Board  of  Inquiry.   The  Judge
Advocate General found that the applicant’s substantial rights had not
been prejudiced in the proceedings and the case was legally sufficient
to sustain the findings and  recommendations.   On  6 June  1960,  the
Secretary of the Air Force ordered that the applicant’s appointment as
a Regular Air Force officer be terminated and  that  he  be  honorably
discharged.

On 24 June 1960, the applicant  was  relieved  from  active  duty  and
honorably discharged from all appointments in the Air Force under  the
provisions of AFR 36-2 (unfitness,  unacceptable  conduct  or  in  the
interest of national security).  He had completed a total of 9  years,
8 months and 16 days of active service at the time of discharge.

A similar appeal for reappointment to the Regular Air Force and return
to flying duty as a pilot was considered and denied by  the  Board  on
11 August   1964   (Exhibit   A).    The   applicant’s   request   for
reconsideration of his appeal was denied by the Board  on  20 November
1964 (Exhibit C).

Inasmuch as the current application contains the  same  request  which
was previously considered by the Board, it is  being  processed  as  a
request for reconsideration of the initial application.  The applicant
alleges that his wing commander attempted to smear his reputation when
a “$50.00” check was returned by mistake.  The check was good and  the
bank accepted responsibility for the mistake, but his  wing  commander
would not read the letter from the bank.  Additionally, his  Board  of
Inquiry hearing was anything but fair and impartial.  To  support  his
appeal, the applicant submits personal statements and  a  letter  from
his former roommate during flight training.  The applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error  or  injustice.   We  thoroughly  reviewed  the
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  his
discharge.  In this respect, we note  that,  due  to  the  applicant’s
misconduct, a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate  the  pertinent
facts and circumstances to determine whether the applicant  should  be
discharged from  all  appointments  held  in  the  Air  Force.   After
considering the evidence and testimony, the board determined that  the
applicant’s appointment in the Regular Air Force should be  terminated
and that he be discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge  because  of
substandard  performance  of  duty,  financial  irresponsibility   and
defective attitude.  In cases such of this nature, we are not inclined
to disturb the judgment of commanding officers absent a strong showing
of abuse of discretionary authority.  We believe the Board of  Inquiry
members were in the best position to weigh the evidence  in  the  case
and judge  the  applicant’s  credibility,  as  well  as  that  of  the
statements made in this case,  prior  to  recommending  the  discharge
action.  Other than the applicant’s assertion, no  evidence  has  been
presented to show an abuse of authority by his former  wing  commander
or that of the members of the Board of Inquiry.  With regards  to  the
applicant’s allegation that the Board of  Inquiry  was  anything  “but
fair and impartial due to the composition of the  board  members,”  we
note that he  was  represented  by  counsel  and,  as  the  Report  of
Proceedings reveals, the applicant was “satisfied with the composition
of the board and  challenged  no  member.”   The  new  statement  from
applicant’s former roommate was reviewed as well as the statement this
individual initially submitted  to  the  Board  of  Inquiry.   In  our
opinion, the new statement provides insufficient evidence  to  support
the  applicant’s  contentions.   In  view  of  the  totality  of   the
circumstances,  we  found  no  evidence  that  pertinent   Air   Force
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which entitled during the Board of  Inquiry  proceedings
and ultimate discharge.  In view of the above and in  the  absence  of
evidence that the applicant’s substantial  rights  were  violated,  or
that his superiors abused their discretionary authority,  we  find  no
compelling basis upon which to favorably consider this reconsideration
appeal.

2.  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  issue(s)   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 30 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02423.

   Exhibit A.    Letter, SAFCB, dated 11 August 1964, and
                 initial application package, SAFCB Docket
                 Number 64-1484.
   Exhibit B.    Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.    Letter, SAFCB, dated November 20, 1964, and
                 reconsideration request, dated 13 November 1964.
   Exhibit D.    Reconsideration appeal, DD Form 149, dated
                 24 July 2002, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02423,
                 and letter from Applicant, dated 28 March 2003.



                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair