RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03770
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His dishonorable (sic) discharge be upgraded.

Examiner’s Note:  Applicant received a bad conduct discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 17 years of age at the time and the ruling of a dishonorable
discharge was too harsh and a disgrace to have to live with for the
rest of his life.

The time he served was just and he has spent his time subsequent to
his discharge upgrading his schooling (GED and trade  schools)  and
making himself a good American.  He was told his discharge would be
reviewed and upgraded.  He  has  been  a  law-abiding  citizen  for
almost 48 years.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  12  Jan  55  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 10 Oct 56, applicant was convicted by  a  General  Court-Martial
after  pleading  guilty  to  two  specifications  of  larceny,  two
specifications of escape and one specification of AWOL.   Applicant
was also charged with one specification of desertion, of  which  he
was found not guilty, but was found guilty of an additional  charge
of AWOL.  He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge,  forfeiture
of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor  for  four
years.  His sentence was adjudged on 18 Dec  56  by  the  convening
authority, with the dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of  all  pay
and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for two  years  being
approved.  On 2 May 57, the US Air Force Board of  Review  affirmed
the findings of guilty and the sentence.  On 26 Jun 57, the  United
States Air Force Court of Military Appeals  (now  called  the  U.S.
Court of Appeals for  the  Armed  Forces)  denied  the  applicant’s
petition for grant of review, finding that the Board of Review  had
not erred and therefore the applicant was not entitled to  a  grant
of review.  On 16 Sep 57, the  convening  authority  mitigated  the
dishonorable discharge to  a  bad  conduct  discharge  and  he  was
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-18  with  a  bad  conduct
discharge in the grade of airman basic, with service  characterized
as under other than honorable conditions.   He  was  credited  with
10 months of active duty service (excludes 673 days  of  lost  time
due to AWOL and confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommended denial.   They
opined that the applicant is not contending that a  specific  error
occurred which requires the correction of his court-martial  record
and there is no indication in the record of such an  error.   Thus,
any decision regarding the applicant's discharge  status  would  be
done as a matter of clemency.  While clemency is an  option,  there
is no reason for the Board to exercise clemency in this case.   The
applicant committed the offenses when he was 17 and 18  years  old.
He was a  young  parent  at  the  time  with  only  a  ninth  grade
education.   Nonetheless,  his  brief  period  of  service,   which
included confinement, cannot reasonably be described  as  honorable
service.   The  applicant  received  a  reduced   confinement   and
mitigation of his discharge from  dishonorable  to  a  bad  conduct
discharge because of his youth and family circumstances.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 27 Feb 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 26 Apr 04, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for comment.   At  that  time,  the  applicant  was  also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the  service  (Exhibit  F).   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 error or injustice.   The  applicant’s
submission was thoroughly reviewed, and his contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions, in  and
of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Office of the Judge Advocate General.  The evidence
of record indicates the applicant was convicted by  general  court-
martial for stealing, escaping confinement  and  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL).  No evidence has been presented  which  would
lead us to believe that the  applicant’s  service  characterization
was improper.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence  to
the contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error
or injustice  and  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in  this  application.   Notwithstanding
the  above,  we  note  that  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any
information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.
 If he were to submit any post-service documentation, the Board may
be willing to reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-03770 in Executive Session  on  10  June  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Debra A. Erickson, Member
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 24 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair