RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01143
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be  upgraded  to  an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His health is deteriorating and he  needs  to  have  veteran  benefits  made
available to him.  The records of the incidents that led  to  his  discharge
have no proof of facts and contain no detailed statements from witnesses.

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement, a  copy  of
DD Form 214, Armed Forces  of  the  United  States  Report  of  Transfer  or
Discharge, and a copy of AF Form 7, Airman Military Record.  A copy  of  the
applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 March 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
After completion of basic military training, the applicant  was  trained  as
an Air Policeman.  The applicant was promoted to the grade of  airman  third
class effective and with a date of rank of 5 June 1956.  On 20  March  1957,
the applicant’s career field was changed to Supply Helper.  His  records  do
not contain an Airman Performance Report.

On 18 April 1957, the  applicant  received  a  verbal  reprimand  for  using
phonograph records belonging to another airman without his  permission.   On
1 August 1957, the applicant failed a barracks inspection and  received  two
hours of extra training per day for  two  weeks.   On  5  August  1957,  the
applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report at  the
time prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty  on  2  August  1957.   He
received two hours extra duty per day for two weeks.  On 8 August 1957,  the
applicant was given summary court-martial for violating  Article  92,  UCMJ,
in that he left his place  of  duty  without  getting  permission  from  his
squadron commander as previously instructed.  He was found guilty and  fined
thirty-five dollars.  On 15 August 1957, the applicant was  given  a  second
summary court-martial for violating Article 86, UCMJ, in that he  failed  to
report at the time prescribed to his appointed  place  of  duty  on  12  and
14 August 1957.  He was found guilty and confined to hard labor  for  thirty
days, reduced to the grade of airman basic, and  fined  fifty-five  dollars.
On  17  August  1957,  the  applicant,  while  serving   his   sentence   in
confinement, violated prison regulations by leaving his  assigned  place  of
duty, returning to the barracks, and  threatening  another  airman  who  had
been a witness against him.

On 21 August 1957, upon a request by his commander, the  applicant  received
a physical and mental evaluation.  The  examining  physician’s  opinion  was
that the applicant was able to distinguish  right  from  wrong  and  had  no
physical or mental abnormalities which would warrant discharge under AFM 35-
4.  On 23 August 1957, his commander recommended the applicant be  separated
for conduct that reflected unfavorably upon the Air  Force.   His  commander
stated that attempts to rehabilitate the applicant,  by  counseling  him  on
several occasions, did not seem to change the applicant’s  attitude.   After
consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived  his  right  to  present
matters to a board.  He further acknowledged he understood he could  receive
a  discharge  under  conditions  other  than  honorable   and   receive   an
undesirable discharge that could  deprive  him  of  any  rights  to  receive
veterans’ benefits in the future.    On 30 August 1957, the  base  and  wing
commanders  recommended  approval  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  with  an
undesirable discharge.  The discharge authority approved the discharge on  9
September 1957 and ordered an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions  (UOTHC)
characterization without probation and rehabilitation.   The  applicant  was
discharged effective 16 September 1957 under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17
with a UOTHC characterization of service.  He  had  served  one  year,  five
months, and seven days on active duty.  His time lost was 25 days.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of  the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest  record  pertaining  to
the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the  discharge  processing.   Additionally,  the  applicant
provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he  received.   The
DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  claims  there  are  several  deficiencies  in  his  military
personnel  records  that  contribute  to  an  error   or   injustice.    The
applicant’s review is at Exhibit E.

On 31 October 2003, the  applicant  was  given  the  opportunity  to  submit
comments  about  his  post  service  activities.   The  applicant   provided
documentation of his personal  achievements  along  with  several  character
references.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  note  the   letter   of
contentions submitted by the  applicant;  however,  we  find  no  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case  was  erroneous,  his
substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  It is our opinion  that  the  characterization  of
discharge 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   given   the
seriousness and multiplicity of his infractions against the good  order  and
discipline of the service.  Should the applicant base a request  for  relief
on clemency and provide  a  more  expansive  account  of  his  post  service
accomplishments, attesting to his  successful  post-service  rehabilitation,
we would be willing to reconsider this case.  In absence of such  a  request
and evidence, the  majority  of  the  Board  agrees  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis  for
their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, the majority of the Board finds no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF:

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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 30 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

Mr. Gracie and Mr. Maglio voted  to  deny  the  application.   Ms. Willis
voted to grant the applicant’s  request  but  elected  not  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence  was  considered  in
connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01143:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 8 Nov 03, w/atchs.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-01143



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 16
September 1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general
(under honorable conditions).




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency




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

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AFBCMR: BC-2003-01143

      After considering the evidence available for my review, I agree with
the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request that his
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded should
be granted.

      While the applicant’s UOTHC discharge may have been appropriate for
the circumstances at the time, I note he had to live with its adverse
effects for more than 46 years.  Since it would serve no useful purpose to
the Air Force or to society in general to continue the nature of his
discharge at this late date and since it is apparent that he had been a
responsible citizen following his separation, it is my decision that the
characterization of his discharge should be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions) on the basis of clemency.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency