RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01465
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The true reasons for the discharge were unjust.  He had impregnated a  young
girl and the Air Force did not want to have  to  deal  with  the  situation.
So, it was best for them for him to be  discharged.   This  was  an  era  of
racial discrimination.

Applicant did not provide any documents in support of his appeal other  than
a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 January 1952 in the  grade
of private for a period of four years.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of airman second class (A2C) (E-3), effective and with a  date  of
rank of 20 December 1952.  The applicant successfully  completed  basic  and
technical training, during which period, his character and  efficiency  were
rated excellent.  He was assigned to duties as a  communications  specialist
on or about 5 September 1952.

On 9 April 1953, the applicant was demoted for failure  to  repair  and  for
substandard efficiency and conduct.  Due to an  administrative  error,  this
demotion was subsequently revoked.

On 26 June 1953, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the  applicant  under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)  for  offering  a  false
document to avoid duty on or about 24 June 1953.  The applicant was  demoted
to the grade of airman third class (A3C) (E-2).

On 3 August 1953, while at an off-base tavern, the  applicant  was  involved
in disturbances in that bar and refused to obey the order  of  civil  police
that he depart from the scene of the disturbance.  For  this  incident,  the
applicant received squadron punishment in the form of  two  weeks  of  extra
duty.

On 26 August 1953, pursuant  to  his  plea  of  guilty,  the  applicant  was
convicted by a summary court-martial for the offense of  failure  to  go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on  or  about  21  August
1953.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor  without  confinement  for  30
days and to forfeit $55.00 of one month’s pay.

On 3 September 1953, the applicant’s commander  initiated  a  recommendation
that the applicant meet a Board of Officers convened  under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-17 to determine the advisability of his retention in the  service.
 The commander stated his recommendation was based on  his  perception  that
the applicant was a habitual shirker and his commission of  petty  offenses.
In a separate statement, the commander  indicated  that  he  and  the  first
sergeant had repeatedly counseled the applicant  for  his  attire,  conduct,
and job performance.  On 6 October 1953, the applicant was advised  that  he
was to appear before a Board of Officers on 12 October 1953.  The  applicant
was advised of his rights and of the names of the witnesses  called  by  the
board.  In a first indorsement, the applicant indicated he  did  not  desire
counsel during the board’s proceedings  and  did  not  desire  witnessed  to
appear in his behalf.

In the meantime, on or about 24 September 1953,  applicant  was  apprehended
by the Air Police for a Uniform Violation.  On 29 September  1953,  pursuant
to the imposition of nonjudicial punishment for this offense, the  applicant
was demoted to the grade of airman basic.

On 12 October 1953, a Board of Officers was convened  under  the  provisions
of AFR 39-17 to consider  the  case.   The  applicant  appeared  before  the
board, without counsel.  After  hearing  the  testimony  and  reviewing  the
evidence, the  board  found  the  applicant  gave  evidence  and  traits  of
character that rendered his  retention  in  the  service  undesirable.   The
board recommended he be discharged from the  service  because  of  unfitness
with an undesirable discharge.

On 19 October 1953, pursuant to  his  plea  of  guilty,  the  applicant  was
convicted by a summary court-martial for the offense of  failure  to  go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or  about  14  October
1953.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor  for  30  days  and  to
forfeit $55.00 of his pay.

On  29  October  1953,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation
recommended by  the  Board  of  Officers  and  directed  that  applicant  be
discharged with an undesirable discharge.  Applicant was  discharged  on  17
November 1953 under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17,  Discharge  of  Airmen
Because of Unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He served  1  year,  8
months and 13 days on active duty.

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:

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 at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   On  16 June  2004,  the
applicant was invited to provide information pertaining  to  his  activities
since leaving the service.  On 1 July 2004, a copy of  the  FBI  report  was
forwarded to the applicant for review in  comment.   The  foregoing  letters
are at Exhibit E.

In response to the 16 June 2004 letter, the applicant provided a letter  and
a list of references.  Applicant’s response, with attachment, is at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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.  His contentions  are  noted;  however,
in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air  Force
office  adequately  address  those  allegations.   Therefore,  we  find   no
impropriety in the characterization of applicant’s  discharge.   It  appears
that responsible officials applied appropriate standards  in  effecting  the
separation,  and  we  do  not  find  persuasive  evidence   that   pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the  rights
to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that
the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the  discharge
was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant’s overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 25 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 04.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04, Post Service
                       Letter dated 16 Jun 04, and FBI Letter, dated
                       1 Jul 04.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jun 04.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair