RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01861
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Alcoholism was not treated in 1954 as it is now.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by  fire  in  1973
at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri.   The
following information was obtained  from  the  Review  of  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate, dated 1 December 1953 (Exhibit B).

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 December  1947  and  on
22 August 1951 he reenlisted in the grade  of  airman  second  class  for  a
period of six years.

On 29 September 1952, the  applicant  was  tried  by  Summary  Court-Martial
for   being   absent   without  leave  (AWOL)  from  10-22 September 1952.

On 21 February 1953, he was tried by Special Court-Martial  for  being  AWOL
from 28 October 1952 until 5 January 1953.

On 6 October 1953 the applicant  was  tried  by  Special  Court-Martial  for
being AWOL from 9 July until 17 August 1953.  He was  sentenced  to  a  BCD,
forfeiture of $39 per month for two months, and confinement  at  hard  labor
for 60 days.

On 15 December 1953, the Air Force Board of Review affirmed the findings  of
guilty and the sentence.

On 3 January 1954, the applicant was again in an AWOL status.

The applicant did not appeal to the U.S. Court of Military Appeals.

The applicant was discharged on 28 January 1954,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with a bad conduct discharge under the provisions  of  Special  Court-
Martial Order #--.  He served 8 years and 24 days total active service  with
450 days lost time.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, they indicated that they were unable to  identify
with an arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial.  They indicated  that  though  the  applicant
indicates there was no substance abuse treatment available during  the  time
of his offense,  the  staff  judge  advocate  that  reviewed  the  case  and
provided a recommendation to the convening authority about clemency  stated,
“On  one  previous  conviction  the  accused  was  sent  to   the   Lackland
Rehabilitation  Center  and  was  returned  to  his  organization  based  on
drunkenness.”  Although it appears the applicant  has  led  a  stellar  life
since obtaining sobriety, the applicant has failed to allege  any  injustice
or error requiring relief as to the court-martial and no further  action  in
that regard should be taken.  The applicant has provided no  evidence  of  a
clear error or injustice related to the sentence.

The evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 August 2003, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 14 days (Exhibit D).  The applicant provided  a
response with attachments, which is at Exhibit E.

On 15 September 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________


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 an error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  all  the  evidence
presented, we are not persuaded that action to upgrade the  applicant’s  bad
conduct discharge on the basis of clemency is appropriate.  The  applicant’s
discharge had its basis in his trial and conviction by  a  duly  constituted
special court-martial.  While law  precludes  us  from  reversing  a  court-
martial conviction, we are authorized to  correct  the  records  to  reflect
actions taken by reviewing officials and to take action on the  sentence  of
a military court based on  clemency.   However,  there  is  nothing  in  the
available record  that  would  cause  us  to  disturb  the  actions  of  the
reviewing officials in this case.  Although  the  applicant  indicates  that
his alcoholism was not treated in 1954 as it is today, we note that  he  was
apparently treated in a rehabilitation center following one of his  previous
convictions by court-martial but was returned to  his  organization  due  to
drunkenness, whereupon, he was counseled by his commander.  Other  than  his
own assertions, we can find no other mention of an alcohol problem while  in
the service.  Rather,  it  appears  that  his  periods  of  misconduct  were
attributable to his general dissatisfaction with the  service  and  personal
problems.  While the evidence provided  indicates  that  the  applicant  has
made a successful post-service adjustment for which he is to  be  commended,
and notwithstanding his otherwise previous period of  good  service  in  the
Navy between 1944 and 1946, in view of the numerous instances of  misconduct
he committed,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  a  change  to  the  record  is
warranted.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of  record,  we  find
no basis upon which to favorably consider the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-2003-
01861 in Executive Session on 28 October 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
            Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 August 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 August 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 15 August 2003.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 September 2003.





                                RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                Panel Chair