RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01447
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not understand the importance of the  rules  and  orders  during  the
time of his military service.  He  has  worked  hard  to  make  up  for  his
mistake.  He was employed 41 years  at  a  central  railroad  company.   His
health has deteriorated, and he has several medical disabilities.  He  would
like his discharge upgraded due to clemency.

In support of the application, the applicant submits his  application.   The
applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 May 1951, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of private (E-1) at the age of 21 for a period of four (4) years.

On 29 August 1951, the applicant was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) during  the
period 26 July 1951 through 20 August  1951.   For  this  incident,  he  was
tried and convicted by a summary court-martial.  He was  restricted  to  the
limits of his base for 60 (sixty) days, and forfeited $60.00 of his pay.

On 15 September 1951, the applicant failed to go at the time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty.  For this incident he was tried  and  convicted
by a summary court-martial.  He was reduced to the grade of  private  (E-1),
confined at hard labor for 30 (thirty) days, and  forfeited  $53.00  of  his
pay.

On 17 October 1951, the applicant was  tried  and  convicted  by  a  special
court-martial for failing to obey a lawful order.  For this incident he  was
confined at hard labor for four (4) months, and forfeited $50.00  per  month
for a like period.

On 15 January 1952, the applicant was  disorderly  in  quarters.   For  this
incident, he was tried and convicted by a  summary  court-martial.   He  was
confined at hard labor for 30 (thirty) days, and  forfeited  $50.00  of  his
pay.

The applicant was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 2 June  1952  to  8  June
1952.  For this incident, he was tried and convicted  by  a  special  court-
martial on 3 July 1952.  He  was  sentenced  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge,
forfeiture of $55.00 for 3 (three) months, and  confinement  for  3  (three)
months.  The execution of the discharge was suspended pending completion  of
appellate review.

The applicant was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 2 September  1952  to  18
October 1952, on which date  he  was  apprehended  by  civilian  police  and
returned  to  military  control.   For  this  incident,  he  was  tried  and
convicted by a special court-martial on 10 December 1952.  He was  sentenced
to a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of $55.00 for 4  (four)  months,  and
confinement for 4 (four)  months.   The  convening  authority  approved  the
sentence on 9 January 1953.

On 1 April 1953, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct  discharge.
 He had served 8 months and 25 days on active duty.  He had  409  days  lost
time due to AWOL and confinement.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file  in  the  applicant’s  master  personnel  record,  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS opinions the discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  Additionally, he  provided  no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade 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 28 May 2004.   Additionally,  on  10  June  2004,  the
applicant was invited to submit information pertaining to  his  post-service
accomplishments.  As of this date, this office has received no  response  to
any of the above 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 an  error  or  injustice.   His  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale  provided  by
the  appropriate  Air  Force  office.    We   therefore   agree   with   the
recommendation of the respective Air Force office and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed 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.
We further noted that, although he was specifically offered the  opportunity
to do so, the applicant provided no documents to substantiate  that  he  has
maintained the standards of good citizenship  in  the  community  since  his
discharge.  Should he provide such evidence of good conduct for  the  period
of time that has elapsed since  his  separation,  we  would  be  willing  to
reconsider  his  appeal  based  on  clemency.   In  the  absence   of   such
information or evidence  indicating  that  the  applicant  was  deprived  of
rights to which  he  was  entitled  or  that  inappropriate  standards  were
applied in his case, 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 29 July 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member





The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2004-01447:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 March 2004.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated.20 May 2004
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 2004 and
                  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 June 2004.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair