RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02643
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and he be restored to the rank of E-3.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The justification for his discharge under AFR 39-16 was weak,  he  was
only late for a couple of roll calls, he was young, and had just  lost
his wife.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9  March  1961  in  the
grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.    He   was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman  third  class  on  5 May
1961 and the grade of airman second class on  22  December  1961.   He
received two airman performance reports (APRs) closing 17  April  1962
and 17 April 1963, in which he was rated as a “Good  Airman”  on  both
reports.

On 20 April 1964, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant  he
was recommending an administrative discharge, with a  characterization
of general under honorable conditions, pursuant to the  provisions  of
AFR 39-16, paragraph 4(b), for a personality  and  behavior  disorder.
Additionally, applicant’s records indicated  two  Article  15  actions
dated 11 October 1963, for failure to go, in violation of Article  86,
UCMJ, which resulted in his  demotion  from  airman  second  class  to
airman third class, and a reprimand; and 24 March 1964, for failure to
go, in violation of Article 86, which resulted in his reduction to the
grade of airman basic and a reprimand.  Applicant acknowledged receipt
of  the  notification  of  discharge,  however,  did  not  appeal  the
punishments.

On 28 April 1964, an evaluation officer counseled the applicant  about
his opportunities to rebut the bases for  the  action  and  to  submit
statements  in  his  own  behalf.   Applicant  chose  not  to  do  so.
Applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as not  suffering  from  any
mental or physical  conditions  that  would  warrant  separation  from
service under the provisions of AFR 35-4 but  the  psychiatrist  noted
applicant,  while  he  could  distinguish  right   from   wrong,   was
manifesting a passive-aggressive immaturity response.  The base  legal
office reviewed the case and found it legally  sufficient  to  support
separation.  The  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 April 1964 under  the
provisions of AFR 39-16 (personality and behavior disorder),  with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served 3 years,  1
month and 22 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:

AFLSA/JAJM states the applicant has provided no evidence of  an  error
or  injustice  related  to   the   nonjudicial   punishment   actions.
Therefore, they recommend no relief be granted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

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 complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded
to the applicant for review  and  response  within  30  days.   On  20
October 2004, applicant was invited to provide information  pertaining
to activities he has been involved in since leaving the  service.   On
27 October 2004, a copy  of  the  FBI  Report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 14 days.  As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

On 1 November 2004, the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  stating,  he
believes his military service record will reflect that  up  until  the
months preceding his discharge, he was a credit to  the  installations
he was attached to, received rapid promotions and some decorations  as
well.  He received his high school GED while in the service  and  then
began to further his education at the University of Arizona in  Tucson
while still on active duty and in the first year after discharge.   He
is not sure misconduct is an appropriate word to use in describing his
troubles, as there was certainly no intent to do anything to hurt  the
Air Force, his squadron or fellow airmen.  He didn’t offer any  excuse
at the time and he won’t now, but the fact of the  matter  is  he  had
lost his wife just prior to the incidents noted  in  his  record  with
regard to being late for roll calls.  The tardiness was the result  of
sleep problems he had developed.  He didn’t ask for help, and none was
offered.  Being a rather defensive (i.e. frightened) 19-year  old,  he
tried to mask his personal devastation by what he thinks was diagnosed
by a base counselor as immaturity  and  passive  aggressive  behavior.
Since his discharge in 1964, he has been  a  credit  to  society,  his
local communities, and over the course of the succeeding 40 years  has
accomplished a myriad  of  impressive  things  that  some  decorum  of
modesty prevents his going into.  He  is  also  reluctant  to  include
personal character references, as he believes this  to  be  a  private
matter between himself and the Air Force.  He provided a copy  of  his
resume and a couple of letters of commendation from  his  employer  of
the last 20 years, which he hopes will demonstrate his good  character
and accomplishments.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 6 January 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Oct 04.
      Exhibit F. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04, AFBCMR, dated
                 20 Oct 04 and 27 Oct 04.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair