RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01267
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His superiors were not truthful at the discharge hearing, and threatened  to
make an example of him.  He did not have counsel at his hearing.

The applicant's complete submission, consisting of his  application,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 February 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in  the
grade of private (E-1) at the age of 18 for a period of 4 years.

On 18 May 1951, the applicant was demoted to the grade  of  private  due  to
misconduct.

On 23 July 1951, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial  for
being AWOL during the period  of  9  July  1951  to  16 July  1951  and  for
breaking restriction on 9 July 1951.  For this incident, he  was  tried  and
convicted by a summary court-martial.  He was sentenced  to  confinement  at
hard labor for 30 days (mitigated to restriction to the limits of  his  base
for 30 days without hard labor) and forfeiture of $50.00.

On 10 October 1951, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted  a  Request
for Board Action under provisions of AFR  39-17,  indicating  the  applicant
possessed  a  constitutional  psychopathy   consisting   of   an   extremely
inadequate personality (as indicated in a report  by  a  neuropsychiatrist).
Additionally, he stated the applicant’s record of service revealed  frequent
disciplinary actions because of infractions of  regulations  and  commission
of offenses, and it was clearly  evident  the  applicant’s  complaints  were
unfounded and were made with the intent of avoiding service.
On 26 October 1951, a  Board  of  Officers  was  convened  to  consider  the
commander’s recommendation.  The applicant was present and it  is  indicated
in the proceedings that his right to counsel was explained.   After  hearing
the testimony of the witnesses (the applicant elected to remain silent)  and
reviewing  evidence,  in  addition  to   the   above   cited   court-martial
conviction, the board  indicated  the  applicant  had  been  punished  under
Article  104  on  one  occasion  for  failure  to  repair,  and  Article  15
punishment imposed for breaking restriction.  The board found the  applicant
gave  evidence  of  traits  of  character,  which  rendered  his   retention
undesirable because of unfitness.  The board recommend  that  the  applicant
be discharged because  of  unfitness  under  the  provisions  of  Air  Force
Regulation 39-17 and he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate.

On 1 November 1951, the applicant was relieved from duty (as a  student)  at
the  recommendation  of  the  base  surgeon  for  improper  attitude   (with
prejudice).

On 19 November 1951, the  discharge  authority  reviewed  the  findings  and
recommendations of  the  Board  of  Officers,  and  approved  the  discharge
recommendation.

On 26 November 1951, the  applicant  certified  his  receipt  of  the  Board
Proceedings, and was relieved from his duties  and  discharged  under  other
than honorable conditions (Undesirable Discharge).  He had served  9  months
and 16 days on active duty with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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. 765400B), which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  indicates  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.   Additionally,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence,
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing, or provide any facts warranting a change  to  his  character  of
service.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 21 May 2004.   On  1  June  2004,  the  applicant  was
invited   to   submit   information   pertaining   to    his    post-service
accomplishments.  On  29  June  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  aforementioned
correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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. We took notice of the applicant’s  complete
submission in judging the merits of  the  case,  including  his  contentions
that  his  superiors  were  not  truthful  at  the  discharge  hearing   and
threatened to make an example of him; however, we  agree  with  the  opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force office  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has
not been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Other  than  his  own
assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which would  lead  us  to
believe that the  information  contained  in  the  discharge  case  file  is
erroneous, he was not afforded all the rights to which he was  entitled,  or
his commanders abused their  discretionary  authority.   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 probable 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  in  Executive  Session  on
25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Panel Member
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Panel Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  Docket
Number BC-2004-01267:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 04, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRS, dated 19 May 2004.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04.
            Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 04.
            Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 June 04.
      Exhibit E. FBI Report.




      MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
      Panel Chair