RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02457
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge  and  his  narrative
reason for separation changed to Convenience of Government.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been a good family man and a  productive  and  good  citizen  in  his
community subsequent to his discharge  in  1964.   He  indicates  it  is  an
injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences  of  a  bad
conduct discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 October 1953  and  was
honorably  discharged  on  25  March  1957.   He   continued   to   reenlist
contracting his last enlistment on 26 March 1963  in  the  grade  of  airman
first class for a period of four (4) years.

The applicant was convicted by a special  court-martial  for  the  following
offense:

Charge:  Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86.

Specification:  The applicant did  on  or  about  15  August  1963,  without
proper authority, absent himself from his organization, and  did  remain  so
absent until on or about 18 August 1963.



The applicant was found guilty of the  specification  and  charge.   He  was
sentenced to a forfeiture of $100.00 pay.  Only so much of the  sentence  as
provided for forfeiture of $86.00 was approved and duly executed.

The sentence was adjudged on 19 August 1963.

The applicant was convicted by a summary  court-martial  for  the  following
offenses:

Charge:  Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134.

Specification 1:  The applicant did on or  about  27  June  1963,  make  and
utter to the Bowlero Lanes,  Inc.,  a  certain  check  for  the  purpose  of
receiving  lawful  U.S.  currency,  and  did   thereafter   wrongfully   and
dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds  in  the  Northgate  National
Bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment for payment.

Specification 2:  The applicant did on or about 1 July 1963, make and  utter
to the NCO Open Mess, Biggs AFB, Texas, a certain check for the  purpose  of
receiving  lawful  U.S.  currency  and   did   thereafter   wrongfully   and
dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds  in  the  Northgate  National
Bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment for payment.

Specification 3:  The applicant did on or about 6 July 1963, make and  utter
to the NCO Open Mess, Biggs AFB, Texas a certain check for  the  purpose  of
receiving  lawful  U.S.  currency,  and  did   thereafter   wrongfully   and
dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds  in  the  Northgate  National
Bank for payment for such check in full upon its presentment for payment.

Specification 4:  The applicant did on or  about  12  July  1963,  make  and
utter to the Bowlero  Lanes  Inc.,  a  certain  check  for  the  purpose  of
receiving lawful U.S.  currency,  and  did  dishonorably  fail  to  maintain
sufficient funds in the Northgate National Bank for payment of  such,  check
in full upon its presentment for payment.

Specification 5:  The applicant did on or  about  12  July  1963,  make  and
utter to the Bowlero  Lanes  Inc.,  a  certain  check  for  the  purpose  of
receiving lawful U.S.  currency,  and  did  dishonorably  fail  to  maintain
sufficient funds in the Northgate National Bank for payment of  such,  check
in full upon its presentment for payment.

The applicant was found guilty of all specifications  and  the  charge.   He
was sentenced to be discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with  a  bad  conduct
discharge.

The sentence was adjudged on 15 November 1963.


On 13 December 1963, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the  applicant  be
separated with a bad conduct discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 10 February 1964, in the grade of  airman  basic
with  service  characterized  as  under  other  than  honorable   conditions
(UOTHC), under the provisions of AFR 39-18, Special Court Martial Order  #8,
dated 3 February 1964  and  was  issued  a  DD  Form  259AF  -  Bad  Conduct
Discharge.  He served 10 years, 3  months,  and  17  days  of  total  active
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated based upon the  documentation
on file in the applicant’s records, his discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   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.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to his character of service or reason for separation.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 and 27 August 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded
to the applicant and counsel for review and response within 30 days.  As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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  office  of  primary
responsibility (OPR)  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  The evidence of record indicates he was sentenced to a  BCD,  as
a result of his conviction by  special  court-martial  for  five  counts  of
wrongfully and dishonorably failing to  maintain  sufficient  funds  in  his
checking  account.   He  now  requests  his  under  other   than   honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge  and  his
narrative reason  for  separation  changed  to  Convenience  of  Government.
After a thorough review of the facts and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we
find no evidence which indicates the applicant’s discharge was  improper  or
that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in  this
application.  Notwithstanding the above,  we  note  the  applicant  did  not
provide any information pertaining  to  his  activities  since  leaving  the
service.  If he were to submit any post-service documentation, we  would  be
inclined to reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02457 in Executive Session on 21 October 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 July 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 August 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 and 27 August 2004.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair