RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03923
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                             COUNSEL:  DAV

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  late  husband’s  undesirable  discharge  (unfitness)  be   changed   to
honorable.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After seven years, her husband’s undesirable discharge should be waived  and
changed to honorable.

In support of her request, the applicant has submitted a copy  of  her  late
husband’s death certificate, and a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  National
Personnel Records Center dated 12 November 2003.  The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  former  member’s  military  personnel  records  are  incomplete.    The
following information was extracted from the  remaining  documentation,  and
the former member’s Service Record, DD Form 230.

On 2 May 1953, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  at  the
age of 17 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.   He  was
promoted to the grade of airman third class, effective date of rank 18  June
1953.

In a summary court-martial on 25 August 1953, he was tried and found  guilty
of being absent without proper authority from 7 August  1953  to  24  August
1953.  He was reduced in rank to the grade of airman basic, sentenced to  20
days’ hard labor, and fined $50.00.

On 12 February 1954, he was again promoted to  the  grade  of  airman  third
class.  On 15 February 1954, he received an Article 15, UCMJ  for  consuming
alcoholic beverages in his quarters, and was again reduced to the  grade  of
airman basic.

In a summary court-martial trial on 10 March 1954, he was charged and  found
guilty of being absent without proper authority  from  2  March  1954  to  9
March 1954.  He was sentenced to 21 days of hard  labor,  and  fined  $55.00
(reduced to $38.00).

The applicant’s discharge case file is not  a  matter  of  record.   He  was
discharged from the Air Force on 3 April 1954 under the  provisions  of  AFR
39-17 because of Unfitness.  He had served 9 months and 12  days  on  active
duty with 50 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an  investigative  report  pertaining  to  the  applicant
(Identification Record No. 103986D), which is at Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS offers no recommendation.  DPPRS is unable  to  determine  the
propriety of the discharge based on the lack of  documentation  on  file  in
the master personnel records.  Applicant did  not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors in the discharge  processing,  nor  provide  facts  that
support upgrading the discharge to honorable (Exhibit C).
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to  the  applicant  for  review
and comment on 27 February 2004.  On 22 March 2004 a  copy  of  the  Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI) report was forwarded to  the  applicant.   As
of this date, this office has received no  response  to  any  of  the  above
correspondence.  On 9 March  2004,  the  applicant  was  invited  to  submit
information pertaining to the former member’s post-service accomplishments.

In regards to post-service accomplishments, on 16 March 2004, the  applicant
stated her husband left the Air Force due to misconduct  charges,  moved  to
Amesbury, Massachusetts in 1959, and  was  employed  by  Amesbury  Plastics.
They were married in  1961,  moved  to  Tuscaloosa,  Alabama,  and  had  two
children.  Her husband worked part-time over seven  years  for  Phifer  Wire
Products to support his family (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  error  or  injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence and in the absence of evidence by the  applicant  to  the
contrary, we must assume  that  the  actions  taken  to  effect  the  former
member’s discharge were proper and in compliance with the provisions of  the
governing regulations in effect at that time.  In  addition,  the  applicant
provided no documentary evidence to support her assertion that prior to  his
demise, her husband had become a law-abiding and productive  member  of  his
community in the years after his separation, thereby providing a  basis  for
relief on clemency.  While  we  are  not  unsympathetic  toward  the  former
member's family, in view of  the  above,  we  find  no  basis  on  which  to
favorably consider the applicant’s request.
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-03923
in Executive Session  in  Executive  Session  on  27  May  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04;
                   Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 04, with attachments.
                   Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Mar 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter dated 16 Mar 2004.
      Exhibit F.  FBI Report.








      GREGORY H. PETKOFF
      Panel Chair