RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02817
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his discharge was inequitable  in  that  it  was  based  on  the
actions  of  an  immature  airman  whose  judgment  was   of   a   confused,
inexperienced young boy who was far away from home.  The first two years  of
his enlistment were trouble free;  however,  after  two  years  overseas  he
needed to see his parents.  He felt that his parents  needed  him  at  home.
He made a hasty decision to get out of the  Air  Force  any  way  he  could.
Since his discharge he states that he has turned his  life  around.   He  is
married with three sons and one daughter.  He believes that  he  deserves  a
second  chance.   He  has  been  a  model  and  productive  citizen  in  his
community.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by  fire  in  1973  at
the  National  Personnel  Record  Center  (NPRC)  in  St.  Louis,  Missouri.
Therefore, the facts and circumstances leading  to  his  discharge  are  not
available.  The following information  was  obtained  from  a  copy  of  the
applicant’s DD Form 214  (Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States  Report  of
Transfer or Discharge).

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21  January  1954  for  a
period of four years.

Applicant was discharged on 2 October 1956, in the grade  of  airman  basic,
under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17  (Unfitness)  with   an   undesirable
discharge.  He served 2 years, 7 months, and 16 days  total  active  service
with 25 days lost time.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  that  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended upgrading the discharge to general  (under  honorable
conditions) due to the lack of documentation to support the reasons  leading
to the applicant’s discharge, if  a  search  of  the  FBI  file  reveals  no
convictions.  They indicated that based  upon  the  lack  of  documentation,
they  believe  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and
substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   Additionally,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 September 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days  and  on  30  September
2003  the  Board  staff  requested  the   applicant   provide   post-service
documentation within 14 days.   The  applicant  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, that is at 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  an  error  or  injustice.   Based  upon  the  presumption  of
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and  without  evidence  to
the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was  proper  and
in compliance with appropriate directives.  We note the recommendation  from
the Air Force; however, based on the  limited  documentation  pertaining  to
the reason for his separation, the majority of the Board does not  recommend
an upgrade of his discharge.  Therefore, based on the available evidence  of
record, the majority finds no basis upon which to  favorably  consider  this
application.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based on  clemency,  the  majority  of  the  Board  also  find  insufficient
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on  that
basis.  Therefore, based on the evidence  of  record,  the  majority  cannot
conclude that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
02817 in Executive Session on 12 November 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial.  Mr. Van Gasbeck voted  to
upgrade the discharge to general (under honorable conditions), and does  not
wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 August 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 29 August 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 September 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 September 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 October 2003, w/atchs.




                                 DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                 Panel Chair







MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
                   MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MRB

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of

      I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the AFBCMR majority that the applicant’s request to upgrade his
discharge should be denied.

      The applicant was discharged on 2 October 1956, under the provisions
of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge after serving 2
years, 7 months, and 16 days of active duty, with 25 days of lost time.  At
the time of the applicant’s discharge, regulations mandated an undesirable
discharge for airmen discharged for unfitness.  However, after reviewing
the available documentation, I believe the applicant’s discharge should be
upgraded on the basis of changes made to AFR 39-17 on March 18, 1959,
giving a commander more discretion when recommending a discharge for
unfitness, as in the applicant’s case.  After this date, an airman would be
furnished an undesirable discharge unless the circumstances warranted a
general or honorable discharge.

      The applicant indicated the first two years of his service were good -
performing his duties in an acceptable manner and earning his high school
equivalency.  However, his parents became ill and he believed they needed
his help, so he decided he needed to return home.  What happened next is
unclear, but according to the applicant’s DD Form 214, he had 25 days of
lost time, presumably for being absent without leave (AWOL) and/or from
confinement as a result of a court-martial.  While the exact reason for the
applicant’s undesirable discharge cannot be determined from the available
documentation, it is reasonable to conclude that his misconduct was minor
in nature.  Given the limited documentation, and based upon the presumption
of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, and without evidence
to the contrary, it appears the applicant’s separation was proper and in
compliance with the appropriate directives.  Nevertheless, in accordance
with the 1959 change in Air Force policy regarding discharge of airmen
under AFR 39-17, it is noted that personnel discharged under this authority
could conceivably have their service characterized with a general or an
honorable discharge.  While there is no indication in the applicant’s
available records regarding the quality of his service, during the time
period in question, the commander would have been precluded from giving him
either a general or an honorable discharge.  However, as a result of the
change in policy, either a general or an honorable discharge could have
been recommended.

      The Air Staff has recommended the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to
general (under honorable conditions) should a check of his FBI record
reveal no convictions.  The FBI indicates they are unable to identify any
arrest record to the applicant.  Additionally, the applicant has taken full
responsibility for his past actions and appears to be a law-abiding citizen
and highly thought of by members of his community.

      Certainly I do not condone the behavior that led to his undesirable
discharge.  Regardless, I believe there is some doubt he would have
received the same characterization of service if the current policies had
been available at the time of his separation.  Therefore, I believe to
preclude any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, it is my decision that
his discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).  A fully
honorable discharge was considered, however, without documentation
indicating the nature of his misbehavior, a fully honorable discharge is
not warranted.










                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Case File


      AFBCMR BC-2003-02817












      MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF


            Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
      Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance
      with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air
      Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is
      directed that:


            The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
      Force relating to    , be corrected to show that on 2 October 1956, he
      was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable
      conditions).








                                                             JOE G.
      LINEBERGER
                                                             Director
                                                             Air Force
      Review Board Agency