RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00178
            INDEX CODE 106.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1954 general  [formerly  undesirable]  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and that his offenses be expunged from his record.

[Note:  The applicant mentions a spinal injury incurred while  in  the
Air Force but does not indicate what he wants  in  relation  to  this,
i.e., medical discharge, etc.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was guilty of numerous petty offenses  and  feels  that,  after  50
years as a good citizen, his discharge should  be  upgraded  to  fully
honorable and his record expunged.  He ran away from home when he  was
14½,  and  has  suffered  great  public  humiliation,  injustice,  and
prejudice for many years.  He has no criminal record, has been married
for 47½ years, and has raised two creditable  children.   The  biggest
mistake he made was associating with the wrong company when he  joined
the Air Force.  Further, he injured his lower back at the gym at  Shaw
AFB, SC, in Jun 52.  After numerous x-rays, he was never  informed  of
the results.  In Mar 03, the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
informed him he had, indeed, fractured his spine.

The applicant  provides,  among  other  documents,  a  DD  Form  257AF
certificate reflecting he was discharged  under  honorable  conditions
(general) on 22 Sep 54.  His complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted for four years in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
13 Mar 52.  His enlistment physical, on 19 Mar 52, reported his  spine
as normal.  After basic training, he  was  promoted  to  airman  third
class on 2 May 52 and, on 21 May 52, was assigned to the  66th  Supply
Squadron at Shaw AFB, SC, as a stock records clerk.

A 2 Jun 52 outpatient service entry reports x-rays were taken  of  the
lumbar spine.  The applicant had apparently complained of a history of
generalized  joint  pain  with  no  definite  disease  pattern.    The
applicant’s generalized complaints continued, although  x-rays  on  20
Jun 52 were reported as normal.  He was referred to  physiotherapy  on
24 Oct 52.

On 3 Feb 53, he was disorderly in his quarters and  a  Summary  Court-
Martial restricted him to the base for two months.  On 15 Feb  53,  he
broke restriction and was apprehended in NC for speeding and suspicion
of stealing a car.  He was cleared of  the  car  stealing  charge  and
returned to Shaw  AFB.   A  Summary  Court-Martial  sentenced  him  to
confinement at hard labor for  30  days,  forfeiture  of  $55.00,  and
reduction from airman third class to airman basic.

A 9 Jun 53 medical entry  reports  the  applicant  had  complained  of
backache and given a history of “service back pain  4  yrs  ago  after
jumping 8ft.”  [Note:  Unless the number  of  years  indicated  is  in
error, this appears  to  place  the  injury’s  occurrence  before  the
applicant’s  enlistment.]  The medical entry revealed the  “x-ray back
in June” showed fractures at the L-5 area of the spine.  Further x-ray
study was ordered.  He was referred to Ft Jackson and, following  that
visit, was placed on a limited activity profile on 28 Jan 53.

The applicant’s squadron subsequently departed for  Sembach,  Germany.
On 31 Aug 53, the applicant failed to report for scheduled guard duty,
was apprehended at the Manhattan Club in  Sembach,  Germany,  and  was
charged for being drunk and disorderly in a public place  in  uniform.
A Summary Court-Martial sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for
one month, forfeiture of $60.00, and reduction to airman basic.

Upon return to duty, he  was  counseled  by  the  squadron  commander,
whereupon it was discovered he had a difficult and unhappy  childhood.
In order to assist his rehabilitation, the applicant requested and was
granted  a  different  job  and  barracks  room  assignment.   He  was
cautioned regarding  his  association  with  certain  members  of  the
organization who had committed repeated petty offenses.

On  13  Nov  53,  a  commander-requested  psychiatric  evaluation  was
performed.  The report gives a description of the  applicant’s  family
background, and confirms he discontinued his education  while  in  the
11th grade; however, he had obtained a high school equivalent while in
the  service.   The  prior  incidents  were  drinking  related.    The
applicant contended he never drank until joining the service  and  had
been  drinking  heavily  recently  to  “forget  and  be  happy.”   The
applicant was found to be unable to maintain emotional equilibrium and
independence  under  stress  because  of  his  profound  feelings   of
insecurity and inferiority.
However, he had no physical or mental  problem  warranting  disability
processing.  A sincere attempt at rehabilitation was recommended.

On 10 Dec 53, the applicant was promoted to airman third class.

On 29 Jan 54, the applicant and another enlisted  member  entered  the
mess hall in a drunken, disheveled and disorderly manner.   Both  were
apprehended by the Air Police and it was discovered the applicant  had
failed to report for  guard  duty.   The  applicant  was  punished  by
Article 15 with two weeks of extra duty.

On 21 Mar 54, he was apprehended for being drunk and out of uniform at
Mary’s Inn at Nehiligen, Germany.

On 27 Apr 54, a commander-requested medical evaluation  was  conducted
with regard  to  possible  administrative  discharge.   The  applicant
stated he was mentally upset, had insomnia,  nightmares  and  tension.
The  evaluation  indicated  the  applicant  had  run   away   from   a
dysfunctional family when he was 14.  The evaluation  concluded  there
was no need for medical disposition and that administrative  discharge
was justifiable.

On 19 May 54, the applicant was reduced via  Article  15  from  airman
third class to airman basic for assaulting an enlisted member  at  the
Coffee Shop in Sembach, Germany, on 5 May 54, while intoxicated.

Statements from various supervisors reflect the applicant’s  inability
to  adapt  to  any  work   environment,   lack   of   initiative   and
unprofessional appearance.   On  6  Jul  54,  the  squadron  commander
provided the group commander with a list of the  applicant’s  offenses
as the basis  for  discharging  him  for  unfitness  despite  repeated
efforts at rehabilitation.  The group and wing  commanders  concurred.
The discharge authority approved the separation under the provision of
AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, and directed  the
applicant be issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

The applicant was admitted to the hospital on 9 Jul 54 for  continuous
right upper quadrant abdominal  pain  since  Nov  53.   At  that  time
appendicitis was  suspected;  however,  tests  were  normal.   He  was
treated for a possible ulcer,  possibly  related  to  Geardia  Lamblia
infestation and discharged from the hospital on 18 Aug 54.

The applicant’s separation physical, on 20 Sep 54, reported his  spine
as normal and that he was worldwide qualified.  On 22 Sep 54,  he  was
discharged in the grade of airman basic after two years, four  months,
and nine days of active service.

A VA Form 07-3101, Request for Information, from the San Francisco  VA
Regional Office, dated 23 Jun 67, noted the applicant’s  DD  Form  214
showed his discharge was undesirable, but his photocopy of DD Form 214
showed his discharge for the  same  period  of  service  to  be  under
honorable conditions (general).   The  VA  Regional  Office  requested
verification.  A hand-written comment on the form, presumably  by  the
San Francisco Administrative Division [Received Seal dated 27 Jul 67],
indicated the “Discharge was reviewed and changed to  Under  Honorable
Conditions on Jun 1, 1967”.  [Note:  The DD Form 214 currently in  the
applicant’s   military   personnel   records   reflects   a    general
characterization of service.]

A 15 Mar 03 DVA decision  granted  the  applicant  a  10%  rating  for
service connection L-5 spine fracture.  Evaluation revealed  that  the
applicant suffered from slight limited range of motion of  the  lumbar
spine.  X-rays indicated mild spondylolisthesis at  the  L5/S1  level.
Diagnosis was lumbo-sacral strain.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the  data  furnished,
they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS notes there is no documentation in the master  personnel
records documenting the discharge upgrade from undesirable to general.
 They conclude the discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation  and  was  within
the discharge  authority’s  discretion.   As  the  applicant  has  not
submitted  evidence  or  identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred during the discharge processing, denial is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends he was not told of his rights and  was  coerced
by  his  commander  into  signing  away  any  rights.   The  commander
intensely disliked him.  He requested a transfer  many  times  to  get
away from those who had a bad influence on  him,  but  these  requests
were disregarded.  In his conversation with the Inspector General,  he
was told his accusations against his commander could get him into even
further trouble.  On 31 Aug 53, he was not drunk  and  disorderly  but
had been drugged, beaten and robbed.  Young men who burned their draft
cards during the Vietnam era were later given blanket amnesty.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

On 23 Feb 05, the AFBCMR Staff invited the applicant to provide  post-
service information within 20 days (Exhibit G).

The applicant provides a personal statement describing his life  since
separation as well as  his  family.   He  provides  several  character
statements and asks his discharge be upgraded  so  that  he  does  not
continue to bear the stigma from these long-ago, minor offenses.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant referred to a back
injury incurred while in the Air Force but did not specify what action
he wanted the Board to take on this issue.  Presuming he wanted either
a medical discharge with severance pay or a medical retirement, we are
not persuaded the applicant had a medical condition that rendered  him
unfit.  If the 9 Jun 53 medical  entry  is  correct,  the  applicant’s
injury and subsequent back pain may have begun four years prior, which
would be before he enlisted.  Military medical  evaluation  determined
his spinal condition, while requiring temporary medical profiles,  did
not warrant disability processing and that he was worldwide qualified.
 The DVA determined the applicant’s condition  was  service  connected
and gave him a 10% rating for slightly limited range of  motion.   The
reason the applicant could be considered fit for duty by the Air Force
and later be granted a service-connected disability by the DVA lies in
understanding the differences between Title 10,  USC,  and  Title  38,
USC.  Title 10, USC, Chapter 61, is the federal statute  that  charges
the Service Secretaries with maintaining a fit and vital  force.   For
an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there  must
be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance  of  any
work commensurate with rank and  experience.   This  clearly  did  not
apply in this  applicant’s  situation.   Congress  recognized  that  a
person could acquire physical conditions that, although not  unfitting
at the time of separation, may later progress in  severity  and  alter
the
individual’s lifestyle and future employability.  With this  in  mind,
Title 38, USC, which governs the DVA compensation system, was  written
to allow awarding compensation ratings for  conditions  that  are  not
unfitting for military service.  The DVA may increase  or  decrease  a
member’s disability rating based on the  seriousness  of  the  medical
condition throughout his/her life span.  This is  the  reason  why  an
individual can be found fit for  duty  and  yet  after  discharge  may
receive a compensation rating from the DVA  for  a  service-connected,
but militarily non-unfitting condition.  Therefore, we see no basis to
alter the applicant’s military records in this  regard.   As  for  his
request  for  an  honorable  discharge,  we  noted  the   post-service
information he provided.  However, a majority  of  the  Board  is  not
persuaded  this  overcomes  the  applicant’s  repeated  misconduct  as
evidenced by three Summary Courts-Martial.   Despite  being  given  an
opportunity at rehabilitation, the  applicant’s  continued  disorderly
conduct resulted in  two  Article  15s.   The  applicant  provides  no
evidence that supports his claims his  rights  were  violated  or  the
discharge process was unjust or in error.   Further,  his  undesirable
discharge apparently was upgraded  to  general  through  some  unknown
process, and the Board majority is persuaded this is sufficient relief
as it enables him  to  receive  DVA  treatment.   The  Board  majority
concludes the applicant’s service should not be characterized  at  the
same level as those military members with unblemished service and this
application should therefore be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session, on 24 March 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                                  Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                                  Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

A majority of the Board recommended denial of the appeal.   Ms. Gordon
recommended the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to honorable on  the
basis of clemency but that his records not be
expunged.  However, she does not wish to  submit  a  Minority  Report.
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00178 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report - Negative
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Jan 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Feb 05.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 05.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated, received 4 Mar 05,
                             w/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR  BC-2005-00178




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      On March 24, 2005, the Board voted to deny the applicant’s
request to have his offenses expunged from his record and his implied
request to be given a disability discharge/retirement.  The Board
majority also voted to deny the applicant’s request to have his 1954
general discharge upgraded to honorable.  After carefully considering
the circumstances of this case, I agree with the minority vote to
upgrade the discharge to honorable.

      Based on the available evidence, the applicant’s undesirable
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge
authority’s discretion.  The applicant has not established the
discharge was erroneous or unjust.  The undesirable characterization
was subsequently upgraded to general, according to verification by the
Veterans Administration in 1967 and the DD Form 214 currently in the
applicant’s records.  The applicant has provided post-service
information demonstrating he has been a productive, law-abiding
citizen since his discharge, and the FBI could find no arrest record
based on the information provided.  Furthermore, the applicant’s
difficult childhood with a dysfunctional family, his emotional
insecurity, and the relatively minor nature of his offenses are, in my
view, mitigating factors.

      In view of the above and given the continued adverse impact of
the discharge, I believe it would be an injustice for the applicant to
continue to suffer its effects.   Accordingly, I direct the
applicant’s general characterization be upgraded to honorable on the
basis of clemency.  However, I agree with the Board that the
applicant’s offenses should remain a matter of record and that his
back problems did not warrant a medical discharge or retirement.
Therefore, these portions of the applicant’s appeal are denied.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR BC-2005-00178




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to     , be corrected to show that, on 22 September
1954, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge
certificate.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency