RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01954
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through no fault of their own, several of his  comrades  and  he  were
shipped out one month before their time was actually up.

In support of the appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his WD  AGO
Form  53-59, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 4 September 1947.

On 2 June 1949, the commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending he appear before a Board of  Officers  to  determine  his
fitness for continued service.  Reasons for the action were:   He  was
convicted by a Special Court-Martial on 25 November 1948 for drunk and
disorderly, confined at hard labor for one month  and  forfeited  $50;
Summary Court-Martial on 6 January  1949  for  drunk  and  disorderly,
confined at hard labor for 30 days and forfeited $50;  Special  Court-
Martial on 3 March 1949 for drunk and  disorderly,  confined  at  hard
labor for two months and forfeited $50; Summary Court-Martial on 2 May
1949 for wrongfully appearing without authority in F---  GE,  confined
at hard labor for 30 days and forfeited $50; and  numerous  reprimands
and restrictions.  The applicant appeared before a Board  of  Officers
on 7 June 1949.  Upon review  of  the  evidence  and  statements  from
witnesses,  the  board  determined  he  should  be  discharged.    The
Discharge Authority  approved  the  Board  findings  and  ordered  the
discharge on 15 July 1949.  He had 107 days of lost time.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of private,  was  discharged
from the Air Force on 17 August 1949 under the provisions of  AR  615-
368 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge.  He  served  11  months
and 2 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that 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.

Upon review of the findings, they find the Board of Officers  did  not
direct  a  specific  characterization  of  discharge.   Although,  his
records would most certainly support an undesirable  characterization,
they  would  however,  defer  to  the  AFBCMR  to  determine  if   the
documentation  contained  in  his  records   support   upgrading   his
characterization to honorable or general.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was not confined to hard labor twice.  He was
only confined for one 30-day period.  He was once erroneously  charged
with striking a superior noncommissioned officer.  He actually did not
strike anyone.  The NCO and he both stumbled and he  (the  NCO)  fell.
The captain, his commanding officer, along  with  a  colonel  said  “I
assure this event did not  occur  as  was  originally  reported.”   He
states, according to the HQ AFPC/DPPRS letter, the Board  of  Officers
which  he  met  on       7  June  1949  did  not  direct  a   specific
characterization of discharge.  Based on the fact  that,  among  other
issues, he believes the bulk of the  information  that  is  reportedly
contained in his file is erroneous, and the fact that  the  Board  did
not make a specific direction with regard to the  characterization  of
discharge, he requests he be given  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  with
respect to said characterization.

He requests he be given an honorable discharge,  or  as  a  minimum  a
general discharge (under honorable conditions).  He believes that this
finding by the AFBCMR would be the most fair and equitable when all of
the factors pertaining to his case are taken into proper context.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the  evidence
of  record,  we  believe  that  the  applicant’s  separation  was   in
accordance with the applicable regulation.  We note that the Board  of
Officers did not make a recommendation concerning the characterization
of his discharge.  However, as noted by  the  Air  Force,  applicant’s
record  of  misconduct  most  certainly   supported   an   undesirable
discharge.  Therefore, we conclude that his discharge was  appropriate
under the existing circumstances.  The only other basis upon which  to
recommend an upgrade of his discharge would be based on clemency.   In
view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence  attesting  to  a
successful post service-adjustment, the  applicant’s  request  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,  BC-
2003-01954,  in  Executive  Session  on  28  August  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. James E. Short, Member
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Jul 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
      Exhibit E. Statement in Support of Claim, dated 21 Jul 03,
                 w/atch.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair