RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00148
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After serving stockade time, he was  told  he  would  be  separated  with  a
general discharge and his only alternative was a general  court-martial  and
dishonorable discharge. Though he did not want to be separated, he  felt  he
had no choice.  He makes no excuses for his misconduct  other  than  he  was
young and immature.  He was unaware of the  appeal  process  when  he  first
discovered he had been separated with an undesirable discharge certificate.

The  applicant  provided  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  appeal.    The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 September 1955, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  at
the age of 17 in the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  four
years.  The applicant was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman
third class  (E-2)  effective  8  December  1955.   The  applicant  received
excellent ratings for character and efficiency on three  occasions  from  12
September 1955 through 2 May 1956.

On 23 July 1956, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment  consisting
of a reduction in grade to airman basic for a drunk and disorderly  offense.
 The applicant was convicted  by  court-martial  on  19  December  1956  for
leaving base without a liberty pass.  He received confinement at hard  labor
for 30 days and was ordered to forfeit $55 as his punishment.  He was  again
convicted by court-martial on 21 May 1957  for  failure  to  report  to  his
place of duty.  He was restricted to base for 30 days  and  was  ordered  to
forfeit $25.  His last court-martial occurred on 31 May 1957,  for  breaking
the 30-day base restriction.  He was fined an additional $60.   On  15  July
1957, the applicant received a second Article 15 for public drunkenness  (he
had been apprehended by civil law enforcement authorities).  He was  ordered
to perform 2 hours of extra duty per day for  a  period  of  14  consecutive
days.

The applicant received a commander directed  psychiatric  evaluation  on  22
July 1957 and was found to have no mental or physical  condition  sufficient
to warrant his separation.  On 23 July  1957,  his  commander  notified  the
applicant that a Board of Officers had been appointed to  determine  whether
he should be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFR  39-
17 because of unfitness.  The applicant acknowledged receipt  and  requested
counsel.  The applicant  and  his  counsel  appeared  before  the  board  on
24 September 1957.   After  considering  the  testimony  and  reviewing  the
evidence, the board found the  applicant  gave  evidence  of  habits,  which
rendered his retention undesirable and recommended he be discharged with  an
undesirable  discharge.   The  staff  judge  advocate  reviewed  the   board
proceedings and recommended approval.

On 18  October  1957,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended
separation  and  directed  that  the  applicant  be   discharged   with   an
undesirable discharge.  The applicant was discharged  effective  31  October
1957 under other than honorable conditions.  He had served 2  years  and  24
days on active duty.  Time lost was 25 days due to confinement.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an  Investigation  Report  pertaining  to
the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the  applicant’s  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation in affect at that time.   Additionally,  the  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The DPPRS  evaluation
is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report  were  forwarded  to
the applicant on 14 February 2003 and 21 March 2003 for review and comment
(Exhibits D and F).   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  received  no
response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of  his  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post-service adjustment in the years since  his  separation,  we
are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore,  we  conclude
that no basis exists upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  his
request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-00148
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 03, with attachment.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
      Exhibit E.  FBI Report #640447L7, dated 13 Mar 03.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Mar 03.



                                  BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                                   Panel Chair