RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03986
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant did not present any contentions.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  Nov  56  for  a
period of four years.  Prior to the  events  under  review  he  was
promoted to the grade of airman third class.

On 13 Apr 57, applicant was apprehended in the parking lot of  Bldg
1329 for speeding and reckless driving in a car that he had stolen.

On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to  repair  for
squadron detail.  His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to
airman basic, effective 27 May 57.

On 28 May 57, he was apprehended by civil police for the  theft  of
auto accessories; he was convicted and given a six months suspended
sentence.

On 29 May 57, he received an Article 15 for  breaking  restriction.
His punishment consisted of 14 days restriction to the barracks.

On 28 Jun 57, he failed to repair for bay orderly.

On 29 Jun 57, he again failed to repair for bay orderly.

On 30 Jun 57, he received an Article 15 for sleeping on post  where
he posted as a sentinel.   His  punishment  consisted  of  14  days
restriction to the barracks.

On 28 Jul 57, he was arrested by civil authorities for speeding and
for having improper mufflers.  He was convicted and fined for  this
offense.

On 6 Aug 57, he was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for  failing
to repair  for  kitchen  police.   He  was  sentenced  to  30  days
confinement and fined $55.

On 30 Aug 57, applicant received a medical  evaluation  stating  he
had no physical or mental conditions  warranting  separation  under
the provisions of AFM 35-4.

On 3 Sep  57,  the  commander  initiated  administrative  discharge
action against  the  applicant  for  unfitness,  stating  that  the
applicant was considered unfit for continued  service  in  the  Air
Force due to the incidents cited above.

On  that  same  date,  applicant  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
administrative discharge  action  and  waived  his  entitlement  to
appear before a board of officers and requested discharge  in  lieu
of board proceedings.  He further acknowledged that  he  understood
that if his application was approved, that his separation could  be
under conditions other than honorable and that he could receive  an
undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a
veteran under both federal and state legislation.

On 6 Sep 57,  the  group  commander  recommended  approval  of  the
applicant’s request for discharge.

On 18 Sep 57, the wing commander approved an undesirable  discharge
and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  issued  a   DD Form 258AF,
“Undesirable Discharge Certificate.”  On 24 Sep 57,  applicant  was
discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFR 39-17,   with   service
characterized as under other than  honorable  conditions.   He  was
credited with 9 months and 13 days of active duty service (excludes
25 days lost time due to 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:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
available documentation in  the  file,  they  found  the  discharge
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the
discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was  within  the
sound discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   They  also  noted
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided
no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

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 30 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 5 Mar 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  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the  available
evidence of record, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.

4.  Although   the   applicant   did   not   specifically   request
consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence
to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on  that
basis.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of  service,
the events which precipitated the discharge,  and  the  absence  of
evidence   related   to    his    post-service    activities    and
accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03986 in Executive Session on  29  April  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Mar 04.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN JR.
                                   Panel Chair