RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03333
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None
        (aka  )

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1965 general discharge from the Air Force Reserves be upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time, it was impossible for him to make normal monthly meetings
because of his occupation.  He was called back for 60 days for missing
meetings and served honorably during that period.  However, as nothing
had changed in his occupation, he was still unable to  attend  regular
monthly meetings.  He was forced to make a choice between feeding  his
family and attending meetings.  To be in the  position  of  not  being
able to feed his family or not being available for a sick daughter  is
unfair under any conditions.  During all his endeavors  with  the  Air
Force, he was a good troop who served honorably and  always  did  more
than was expected.  He is a  senior  citizen  and  prefers  no  stigma
connected with his military service.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, then a salesman with the Union Central  Life  Insurance
Company, enlisted in the Reserves for a period of six years on  13 Apr
62, and was assigned to the 90th  Air  Terminal  Squadron  (90ATS)  at
Homestead AFB, FL.  On that date, he signed a  certificate  indicating
he  had  been  briefed  regarding  Air  Force  Reserve   participation
requirements and he fully understood what was expected of him.  The 13
Apr 62 Ready Reserve Agreement reflected his agreement that  he  would
not be released from his unit of  assignment  for  the  6-year  period
except at the commander’s discretion, would be  immediately  available
for extended active duty in the event of any national  emergency,  and
would immediately notify his unit  of  assignment  of  any  change  in
employment  status.   The  13  Apr  62  Statement   of   Understanding
specified,  among  other  things,  that   satisfactory   participation
required attendance at  48  scheduled  inactive  duty  training  (IDT)
periods and performance of 15  days  of  active  duty  training  (ADT)
annually, unless excused by proper authority.

The applicant was called to ADT on 19 Apr 62, and  was  released  from
ADT on 16 Oct 62.  During this time he was promoted  to  airman  third
class, effective 13 Jun 62. He was  awarded  a  satisfactory  year  of
federal service from 13 Apr 62-12 Apr 63.

On 6 Jul 63, the applicant signed a Ready Reserve Agreement  in  which
he agreed to retain Ready Reserve status for a period of  five  years,
giving him a date of expiration of service obligation  of  12 Apr  68.
The Agreement  noted  his  civilian  occupation  as  a  salesman  with
American Album in Cleveland, OH.

A 90ATS letter, dated 20 Sep 63, reported the applicant had failed  to
participate satisfactorily in the Unit Training Assemblies (UTA)  that
year.  Also,  his  past  performance  had  been  unsatisfactory.   The
applicant had been released from the six-month ADT on 18  Oct  62  and
was absent (unexcused) for five UTAs between that date and  the  start
of Fiscal Year 1964 (FY64):  4 Nov 62, 6 Jan 63, 2-3 Mar 63, and 2 Jun
63.  For FY64, the applicant had five unexcused absences:   7 Jul  63,
17-18 Aug 63, and 7-8 Sep 63.  The letter also advised that, on  9 Sep
63, the commander attempted to counsel the applicant  by  calling  his
residence.  The applicant’s family answered and  advised  he  was  not
home but would return the call.  However, the applicant did not return
the call.   The  letter  also  listed  the  dates  the  applicant  was
contacted by letters with regard to his absences.  The 90ATS requested
the applicant be recalled for 45 days of ADT.

By Reserve Order I-38, dated 16 Nov 63, the applicant was  ordered  to
ADT for 45 days at Charleston AFB, SC, for the period (amended  on  20
Dec 63) 6 Jan-18 Feb 64.

In a 14 May 64 letter, the 90ATS  reported  the  applicant  failed  to
complete his ADT, serving only 32  days.   Investigation  revealed  he
simply departed his duty station at Charleston AFB for  his  place  of
residence. [Subsequent correspondence revealed the applicant had  been
dropped in absent without leave (AWOL) status, effective  10 Feb  64.]
The letter indicated the applicant  showed  no  intention  of  further
participation in the Reserve  program,  despite  repeated  contact  by
signed-for certified letters to this effect.  In a case of  this  type
(invoked tour and continued unsatisfactory  participation),  a  member
becomes subject to draft call.  However, since enlisting the applicant
had acquired a wife and stepchild,  thus  eliminating  his  chance  of
being drafted.

On 10 Jun 64, headquarters at Robins AFB, GA, noted the unit’s failure
to apprehend the  applicant  even  though  aware  of  his  whereabouts
invalidated any basis for action under Article 86,  UCMJ.   Therefore,
headquarters considered the 32 days of  ADT  performed  satisfied  the
requirement for a 45-day invoked tour.  However,  he  was  subject  to
being reported to the Selective Service System for priority  induction
if he again failed to satisfactorily participate in required training.
 Since he had failed to participate satisfactorily since completion of
his 45-day tour, he was to be reported to headquarters  for  necessary
action.

On 4 Oct 64, the 90ATS reported the applicant had  four  UTA  (16  pay
periods) of unexcused absences that fiscal year and had not  indicated
a personal hardship existed.  Normal driving time  to  participate  in
training with his unit was approximately  45  minutes.   He  had  been
afforded the opportunity to apply for  screening  to  Standby  status.
The Miami Local  Draft  Board  advised  the  applicant  would  not  be
considered for induction  due  to  his  wife  and  child.   The  90ATS
commander recommended an unsatisfactory discharge.

On 21 Jan 65, the commander notified the applicant the Air  Force  was
initiating proceedings to discharge him from his Reserve status.   The
Statement of Reasons cited his unsatisfactory participation  and  that
he was non-inductible.   On  3  Feb  65,  the  applicant  applied  for
discharge in lieu of further action and waived his right  to  a  board
hearing.

On 16 Feb 65,  the  applicant  was  relieved  from  the  Reserves  and
discharged under honorable conditions (general), effective 16 Feb 65.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP contends the applicant’s records reveal he was awarded due
process and there were no errors  in  the  proceedings.   He  received
proper counsel on his rights for failure to satisfactorily participate
and the applicant willingly accepted the discharge  action.   Further,
the applicant provides no compelling information or  documentation  in
support of his request for an honorable discharge.  Therefore,  denial
is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 7 Jan 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.   The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of  record
and the rationale provided by the Air Force.  In this regard, we  note
the  applicant  knew  and   understood   his   Reserve   participation
requirements,  but  repeatedly  failed  to  satisfy  his  obligations.
Further, he was given ample opportunities to respond,  obtain  excused
absences, or correct his behavior.  The applicant took none  of  these
actions, and even simply departed his duty station when he was on  ADT
in early 1964.  Significantly, a 4 Oct 64 90ATS indorsement stated the
applicant  had  not  indicated  a  personal  hardship  existed.    The
applicant clearly had no intention  of  satisfying  his  participation
requirements and his marriage rendered him ineligible  for  induction.
The Air Force had little recourse but to discharge him and, under  the
circumstances, we  believe  he  was  fortunate  to  receive  an  under
honorable conditions characterization.  We therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  not  sustained  his
burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of
the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 23 February 2005 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03333 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 29 Dec 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 05.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair