RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00254
                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He understands the discharge he  received  in  1961.   He  was  young,
stupid and immature.  He served his time for the acts he did while  in
the military.  He has lived as a model citizen since the incident.  He
has raised eight children and runs a successful business.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  11  June
1956 as an airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.   He  was
honorably discharged on 9 August 1958 and reenlisted  on  10  August
1958 for a period of six years.

On 2 February 1961, applicant was notified of his commander's  intent
to recommend him for discharge for being found guilty of burglary and
sentenced to two years confinement in the Texas  State  Penitentiary.
In  the  recommendation  for  discharge,  the  commander  cited   the
following derogatory information:

      a.    21 September 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

      b.    23 September 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

      c.    7 November 1959, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

      d.    7 January 1960, Reckless Driving, 28 hours extra duty.

      e.    25 March 1960, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

      f.    23 May 1960, theft of government property, summary court-
martial, reduced to Airman Basic (AB), forfeiture  of  $40  and  hard
labor for 30 days.

      g.    3 June 1960, Letter of Indebtedness, counseled.

      h.    5 November 1960, Letter  of  Indebtedness,  in  hands  of
civilian authorities.

      i.    12 January 1961, driving with expired  driver’s  license,
in hands of civilian authorities.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to a Board hearing;
to consult legal counsel and that military legal  counsel  had  been
obtained for him; and to submit statements in  his  own  behalf;  or
waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 27 February 1961, after consulting with  counsel,  the  applicant
waived his right to a board hearing and to submit a statement in his
behalf.

The discharge authority approved  the  discharge  and  directed  the
applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under  other   than   honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.

On 16 June 1961, the applicant was discharged under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-22 Discharge of Airman for  Misconduct  Because  of  Civil
Court Disposition (conviction by civil court), with an  under  other
than  honorable  conditions  (undesirable)  discharge.   He   served
4 years, 4 months and 18 days of active service and had 228 days  of
lost time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant’s  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not provide  any  facts  to  warrant  an
upgrade of his discharge.
Based on the information and  evidence  provided  they  recommend  the
request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2
April 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.

On 16 April 2004, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide
documentation on his activities since leaving military service.   The
applicant did not respond (Exhibit F).

On 14 May 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the
investigative report for his review and comment.  The  applicant  did
not respond (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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's   records,   it   appears   the   processing    and    the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the  applicant’s
overall quality of service, however, in view of his  misconduct  while
he was on active duty and the apparent continued  acts  of  misconduct
after leaving  active  duty,  we  do  not  believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.  Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to a  request
to  provide  documentation  regarding  his  post-service   activities.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2004-00254 in Executive Session on 14 July 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Mar 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 2 Apr 04.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Apr 04.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 May 04.




                       OLGA M. CRERAR
                       Panel Chair