RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00815
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not in need of any government assistance.  He is very displeased
with himself for the way he served his country and he  would  like  to
have a more desirable discharge.

Applicant provided a copy of his DD Form  214,  Armed  Forces  of  the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, a copy of his  DD  Form
215, Correction to DD Form 214, a copy of his enlistment record, and a
copy of his Airman Military Record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 23 August 1965 in the grade
of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.  He was progressively
promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3C) on 17 December 1965.

On 4  May  1967,  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  misconduct.   The
commander was recommending applicant be discharged with an under other
than  honorable  conditions  (undesirable)  discharge  based  on   the
following:  (1) On 26 January 1967, applicant  was  convicted  in  the
Magistrate court of Jackson County, Missouri for malicious destruction
of property and sentenced to 365 days in the County Jail and  given  a
bench parole for two years.  On 1 March 1967, he was  demoted  to  the
grade of airman basic.  (2) On 24 April 1967, in  Cass  County  Court,
Harrisonville,  Missouri,  applicant  entered  a  plea  of  guilty  to
burglary and larceny.  The court sentenced him to two years in  prison
for each offense, with terms to run consecutively, and placed  him  on
parole for five years.  After consulting with legal counsel, applicant
waived his rights to a  hearing  before  an  administrative  discharge
board.  He also indicated he was not submitting statements in his  own
behalf  and  understood  if  the  discharge  authority  approved   the
recommendation for  discharge,  the  discharge  authority  would  also
determine the type of discharge he received.  The base legal  services
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to   support
separation.  The  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed that  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5  June  1967  under
the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service  and
Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program  (discharge  for  misconduct
because  of  civil  court  disposition),  with  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He had served one year,
nine months and six days on active duty.  He had  four  days  of  time
lost due to civil confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
provided  a  copy  of  an  investigative  report  pertaining  to   the
applicant.  Other than the infraction leading to his  separation,  the
report contained no further information pertaining to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the discharge authority.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  the
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he got married a short time after  his  release.
He was blessed with two sons.  He had several jobs before  he  started
working for Ford Motor in 1973;  of  all  the  jobs,  Ford  Motor  was
definitely the most rewarding.  Unfortunately, his wife  divorced  him
in 1981.  Through all of this, he gained Jesus Christ as his  personal
Lord and Savior.  He was blessed with a second wife and  a  very  nice
home.

His wife submitted a statement saying she did not know  the  applicant
in the early years, but she knows who he is today and for the past  18
years that they have been married.  She knows of his  past  life,  but
today he is a changed man.  He is a man who serves the Lord, a man who
can be trusted, a man of integrity, a good father and  provider.   Her
husband just retired from Ford Motor, a company of which he served for
30 years.  She is a woman who is proud to be called his wife.  She  is
truly blessed and thank God that He put him in her life.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at 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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error or that he has been the  victim  of  an  injustice.   The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that the information in his
discharge case file was erroneous, his  service  characterization  was
contrary to the governing regulation then in effect, or his commanders
abused their  discretionary  authority.   We  also  find  insufficient
evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on
the basis of clemency.  We have noted the assertions of the  applicant
and his wife that he has made a successful  post  service  adjustment.
However, in view of the seriousness of the offenses that  led  to  the
applicant’s separation  and,  given  the  length  of  time  since  his
separation, in the absence  of  more  expansive  documentary  evidence
substantiating these claims,  we  do  not  believe  that  clemency  is
warranted.  Based  on  the  above,  the  applicant’s  request  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                       Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR BC-2004-00815:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Apr 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04 and AFBCMR
                       Letter dated 27 Apr 04.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 28 May 04, w/atch.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair