RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03376
            INDEX CODE:  65.00

            COUNSEL:  DISABLED AMERICAN
                          VETERANS

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  (undesirable)
discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He no longer  exhibits  the  immature  and  youthful  behaviors  which
resulted in his discharge.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  provided  a  statement  from
counsel, character reference statements, certificates of appreciation,
and his separation document.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 Jun 57 for a  period
of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 22 May 59, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending  his  discharge  for  unfitness   with   an   undesirable
characterization.  The reason for the action was his lack of  devotion
to duty and unbecoming conduct.  The applicant was  tried  by  summary
court-martial on 6 Jun 58 for sleeping  on  duty,  for  which  he  was
reduced to airman basic and fined $40.00.  On 22 Jan 59, he was  tried
by summary court-martial for failure to repair and being disrespectful
to two noncommissioned officers, for which he was  reduced  to  airman
basic and fined $60.00.  He was convicted by summary court-martial  on
11 May 59 for failure to repair and sentenced to  15 days  confinement
at hard labor.  The applicant waived his right to present matters to a
board and chose not to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 24  Jul  59,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge, with an undesirable characterization.

On 9 Sep 59, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFR
39-17 (Unfitness) and was furnished an undesirable discharge.

On 11 Dec 59 and 18 Oct 78,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB)  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s  request  that  his
discharge be upgraded to honorable.

On 28 Jan 81, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s  request
for upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

The  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,
indicated that, on the basis of data furnished,  they  are  unable  to
locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  indicating  that   based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
directives in effect at the time of his discharge.  Additionally,  the
discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   In
their view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing,
nor provided any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  10
Jun 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

By letter, dated 14 Aug 03,  the  Board's  staff  requested  that  the
applicant provide  information  pertaining  to  his  activities  since
leaving the service.  As of this date, no response has  been  received
by this office (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.  The evidence of record indicates
that the applicant was involuntarily  discharged  for  unfitness.   No
evidence has been presented which would lead us to  believe  that  the
applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to  the  provisions  of
the discharge directive under which it was effected.  We reviewed  the
post-service documentation provided by the applicant in support of his
appeal.  However, due to its  limited  nature,  we  do  not  find  the
documentation sufficient to warrant favorable action based on clemency
at  this  time.   However,  if  the  applicant   provides   additional
documentation pertaining to his activities since leaving the  service,
reconsideration of his request may be appropriate.   In  view  of  the
above, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable  action
on the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be  upgraded
to honorable.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03376 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Aug 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair