RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00302
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  1954  “dishonorable”  discharge  be   changed   to   undesirable.
[Note: The applicant’s discharge is characterized  as  undesirable  on
his DD Form 214.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Veterans’ hospital shows him  as  being  dishonorably  discharged,
which is not the case. His undesirable discharge  keeps  him  eligible
for veteran’s treatment. He was  traumatized  when  he  saw  his  best
friend killed by an air policeman for going out of the gate without  a
pass. He would be happy to be upgraded to “undesirable under honorable
conditions.”

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the applicant’s available
military personnel records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan 51  and  was
assigned to the 6351st Medical Squadron at Naha Air Base.

On 20 Mar 52, he was given a neuropsychiatric exam  and  diagnosed  as
having  an   inadequate   personality   and   life-long   history   of
maladjustment. The condition was determined  to  be  not  amenable  to
psychiatric treatment,  disciplinary  action  or  rehabilitation.  The
psychiatrist  strongly  recommended  separation  for   his   defective
character.

On 21 Mar 52, he was convicted by  summary  courts-martial  (SCM)  for
willfully disobeying a lawful order to  remove  an  unauthorized  sign
over the barracks entrance. He was restricted to base  for  two  weeks
and forfeited $25.

On 16 Jun 52, the detachment commander  recommended  to  the  squadron
commander that the applicant be administratively discharged.

On 8 Jul 52, the applicant was charged with  violating  an  order  and
indecent assault on 30 Jun 52, and breaking restriction on  3 Jul  52.
As a result, he was given a psychiatric evaluation  on  9 Jul  52.  No
disability or defect warranting disability  discharge  was  found  and
administrative discharge was again recommended.

On 21 Jul 52, the squadron commander advised the wing  commander  that
rehabilitation attempts had proven unsatisfactory and recommended  the
applicant meet a board of officers to ascertain whether he  should  be
retained. In the letter, the commander also  indicated  the  applicant
had been given an Article 15 for threatening and disrespecting the air
police at Yontan Air Base on 30 May 52, resulting  in  restriction  to
base for two weeks.

On 28 Jul 52, the applicant received an Article 15  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL) from duty on 26 Jul 52. The  applicant  submitted
nothing in his behalf and was subsequently reduced from  airman  third
class to airman basic. The applicant did not appeal  but  did  request
transfer to another unit.

On 19 Sep 52, the applicant requested to see a psychiatrist because of
worry and his inability to get along wherever he may be. The applicant
was found not to be psychotic and  his  episodes  of  nervousness  and
anxiety did not constitute a  disqualifying  neurosis.  The  applicant
indicated he was disposed to get in trouble and that he wanted to  get
out of the service. Diagnosis was immaturity with aggressive reaction.


On 1 Oct 52, the applicant pled  and  was  found  guilty  by  SCM  for
failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 23 and 24 Sep  52.  He
was confined to hard labor for 30 days and forfeited $54.00.

On 13 Nov 52, the applicant requested reassignment to another unit  at
either Guam or Okinawa so he could rehabilitate himself. On 25 Nov 52,
he was reassigned to another group  within  the  command.  Apparently,
however, he was reassigned again  and,  on  12 May  53,  his  squadron
requested his transfer to the rehabilitation squadron because  of  his
unresponsiveness to repeated counseling, correction and discipline.

At some point, the applicant ultimately  was  assigned  to  the  516th
Material Squadron at Knoxville, TN. On  21  Dec  53,  he  received  an
Article 15 for willfully disobeying a lawful order on 16  Dec  53.  He
was reduced from airman third class to airman basic. The applicant did
not appeal.

On 18 Jan 54, he was restricted to base for two weeks for  failing  to
repair on that date. However, on 23 Jan 54, he broke  restriction  and
was found guilty by SCM on 26 Jan 54 for this offense. He was confined
to hard labor for 15 days and forfeited $40.00.

Affidavits dated 14-18 May 54 from the first  sergeant,  the  squadron
adjutant, supervisors and others in the 516th Material Squadron attest
to  the  applicant’s  incorrigible  behavior,  including  going   AWOL
repeatedly, being indebted, disrupting squadron morale  and  behavior,
disobeying orders, being late for work, etc.

On 18 May 54, the commander recommended the applicant appear before  a
board of officers to determine whether he should be  discharged  prior
to the termination of his enlistment. On 19 May 54,  after  consulting
counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before  a  discharge
board and requested discharge with the understanding that it could  be
under conditions other than honorable.  The  applicant’s  request  was
accepted.

However, on 20 Jun 54, the applicant again went AWOL  from  10 Jun  to
around 17 Jun 54. No further information is available.

The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman  basic  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) on 16 Jul 54 with  an  undesirable
characterization   (equivalent   to   an   under-other-than-honorable-
conditions (UOTHC) discharge). He served 3 years, 2 months and 14 days
of active service. He had 92 days of lost time.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes that, based on the documentation in  the  file,
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the directives in effect at the  time.  The  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.  In  accordance
with AFR 39-33, 3 Jun 53, an “undesirable” discharge is an appropriate
characterization of service  equivalent  to  a  UOTHC  discharge.  The
applicant has not submitted any new evidence or  facts  warranting  an
upgrade; therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 13 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  to  warrant   changing   the
applicant’s discharge. The applicant has asked that his “dishonorable”
discharge be changed to undesirable. However, the  applicant  was,  in
fact, given  an  undesirable  discharge  in  1954.  This  is  what  is
reflected in his  records  and  on  his  DD Form 214.  An  undesirable
discharge is equivalent to today’s  characterization  of  under-other-
than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC). A veteran may qualify for some  DVA
benefits unless issued a bad conduct or dishonorable  discharge  by  a
general courts-martial;  however,  determining  whether  or  not  this
applicant is eligible for any DVA benefits is beyond the scope of this
Board. The applicant needs to contact the DVA  as  it  is  the  agency
responsible for determining his eligibility for any of their programs.
Therefore, since the applicant’s records already appear to reflect the
kind of discharge characterization he  seems  to  be  asking  for,  no
correction by this Board is necessary.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the
applicant  is  actually  requesting  an  upgraded  discharge,  he  has
provided  no  evidence  showing  that  his  own  pattern  of  repeated
misconduct justified any other characterization than what he received.
 In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,
the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of  having  suffered
either an error or an injustice and we find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_____________________________________________________________

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 July 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00302 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated (received 28 Jan 03).
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 03.





                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair