RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03880
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  MARK S. COHEN

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His other than honorable conditions  (OTHC)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes it was unjust for him to receive an  OTHC  discharge.   At  that
time he was only  19  years  old.   He  had  an  exemplary  record  and  the
discharge was based solely  on  an  alleged  18-day  absence  without  leave
(AWOL) during the summer of 1953.  He is now 68 years  old  and  desires  to
have this blemish removed from his record before he dies.

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).   Therefore,   the   facts
surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot be verified.

The available records reflect that the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 23 April 1952.

Applicant was discharged on 25 August 1954, in the grade  of  airman  basic,
with an other than honorable conditions (OTHC)  discharge.   He  served  two
years, four months, and two days of total active duty service.



Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, W.V., provided an investigative  report  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS had no recommendation.  They indicated there is no  documentation
on file in the applicant’s master personnel records relating to  the  reason
for the discharge or the discharge process.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel for the applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated the lack  of
available documentation in the applicant’s records is  not  the  applicant’s
fault.   His  military  records  were  destroyed  in  the  1973  fire.   The
applicant has made heroic efforts to provide  documentation  in  support  of
his request, including a trip at his own expense to the  National  Archives.
Though the applicant knew he had received  a  OTHC  discharge,  he  did  not
realize such classification was unjust until 29 July 2003, when he  received
documents from the Air  Force  Historical  Research  Agency,  including  the
documents that showed his unit had never reported him as AWOL.  Even if  the
applicant’s request is deemed to be untimely, the Board should consider  the
merits of his application in the interests of justice.

Counsel’s response is at Exhibit F.

On 22 January 2004, the Board staff requested the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within fourteen (14) days (Exhibit G).

On 28 January 2004, counsel  requested  the  applicant’s  case  be  held  in
abeyance for 30 days (Exhibit H).

In an e-mail response, dated 4 February  2004,  to  the  extension  request,
counsel was advised that if no response was received by  20  February  2004,
his client’s case would be processed for  presentation  to  the  Board.   In
addition, a copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the  counsel  for
review and response (Exhibit I).





Counsel reviewed the FBI report and indicated the entries on the report  are
35 years old and show arrests rather than convictions.   The  applicant  has
attempted to have these arrests expunged, but was advised that  all  records
pertaining to these arrests and charges had been destroyed.  Counsel  states
the applicant is a likeable and very honest man.  Even now, after more  than
a year, his wife’s death haunts him.  Although his office  is  about  a  75-
minute drive for the applicant, he willingly drives up and brings  documents
to him when he could have just as easily mailed them.  He has done  a  great
deal of work in connection with his application because  he  wants  to  know
that when his time comes he  will  be  able  to  say  that  he  received  an
honorable discharge.

Counsel’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting the applicant’s  discharge  be
upgraded.  Given the limited documentation, and based upon  the  presumption
of regularity in the conduct of government affairs and without  evidence  to
the contrary, we must assume the applicant’s discharge  was  proper  and  in
compliance with appropriate directives.  While  the  exact  reason  for  the
applicant’s other than honorable conditions discharge cannot  be  determined
from  the  available  documentation,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude   his
misconduct was minor in nature.  At the time of the  applicant’s  discharge,
apparently under the provisions of AFR 39-17, an undesirable  discharge  was
mandated for airmen discharged for unfitness.  However, after reviewing  the
available documentation, we 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 was apparently the situation  in  the  applicant’s  case.   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.  While there are a few  entries  on  the  applicant’s  FBI
Report,  we  note  there  are  no  convictions  associated   with   entries.
Actually, it appears the applicant has been a  law-abiding  citizen  who  is
highly thought of by members of the community and who has had to  live  with
the effects of his discharge for nearly 50 years.  We 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, we believe to preclude any possibility of  an  injustice  to  the
applicant,  any  doubt  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  applicant.
Therefore, we recommend his discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 25 August 1954, he was  honorably
discharged and issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
03880 in Executive Session on 23 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 November 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Investigation.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 December 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 December 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 29 December 2003.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 January 2004, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 January 2004.
   Exhibit I.  Letter and e-mail, AFBCMR, dated 4 February 2004,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 19 February 2004, w/atchs.




                 RICHARD A. PETERSON
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-03880




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   , be corrected to show that on 23 August 1954, he was
honorably discharged and issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency