RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01056
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  BRYAN J. KEROUAC

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  31 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  records  be  corrected  to  show  he  was  retired,  rather  than
discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was fraudulent.  He was told by his  commanding  officer
that he was being discharged because he was a homosexual.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Forms 214
and a copy of his reenlistment bonus paperwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  8  June  1949  for  a
period of three years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of
airman  first  class  (E-4)  on  15  April  1952.   He  was  honorably
discharged on 25 November 1952.  He had served 3 years, 5  months  and
18 days on active duty.

He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 April 1953 in the  grade  of
airman second class for a period  of  four  years.   He  continued  to
enlist and serve on active duty, entering his  last  enlistment  on  8
April 1963, when he reenlisted for four years.  He was promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant on 1 December 1958.  He received eight  Airman
Performance Reports (APRs) closing 31 March 1958, 31  March  1959,  31
March 1960, 14 March 1962, and  14  March  1963,  14  March  1964,  12
November 1964 and 10 February 1965, of which the  overall  evaluations
were:  “A Good Airman,” “A Good Airman,”  “A  Good  Airman,”  “A  Good
Airman,” and “An Excellent Airman,” “A Good Airman,” “A Good  Airman,”
and “A Good Airman.”

On 3 March 1965, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for an  established  pattern
showing dishonorable failure to pay just  debts.   The  commander  was
recommending  the  applicant  receive  an  honorable  discharge.   The
discharge action  was  initiated  based  on  a  pattern  of  financial
irresponsibility.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification
of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel waived his  right
to a hearing before a board of officers and  submitted  statements  in
his own  behalf.   The  base  legal  office  found  the  case  legally
sufficient to support the separation  and  recommended  the  applicant
receive an honorable discharge.  The discharge authority approved  the
separation and directed that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an
honorable discharge.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 28  May  1965  under
the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of  unfitness
(unfitness), with an honorable discharge.  He had served 15  years,  7
months and 9 days on active duty.

On 9  March  1967,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered  and  denied  applicant’s  request  for  his   reenlistment
eligibility code to be changed to permit reentry into the military  on
9 March 1967.  The board found that the authority  for  his  discharge
should be changed  and  directed  that  he  be  awarded  an  honorable
discharge  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.
 In accordance with policy, the applicant was advised of his right  to
submit an application to the AFBCMR.

On 29 June 1967, the applicant  submitted  an  application  requesting
reconsideration of his request that  his  reenlistment  code  changed.
However, on 18 July 1967, the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council (SAF/PC) denied his request.

A copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board Brief and  the  request
for reconsideration are attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on  file  in  the  master
personnel records, the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.    The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP states that the applicant submitted no evidence  that  the
reason for his discharge was homosexuality.  His official records show
that the sole reason for his discharge was financial irresponsibility.
 Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 29 April 2005, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded
to 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  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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant has provided no evidence  showing  the  information  in  his
records is erroneous, his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  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 6 December 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                 Ms.Janel I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-01056 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 22 Apr 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 05.




                             MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                             Panel Chair