RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00289
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX              COUNSEL:  NONE

    XXXXXXXXXXXX                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 JULY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  undesirable  discharge  be  upgraded  to   general   (under   honorable
conditions).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His arresting officer was also his judge at his  Article  15.   He  believes
this is not fair.

Applicant provides no supporting documentation.  The applicant’s  submission
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 March 1957, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.  He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman third class  (E-2),  effective  and  with  a
date of rank of  24  May  1957,  1  December  1957  and  1  September  1958,
respectively.

On 21 August 1957,  he  was  charged  with  failure  to  repair.   For  this
incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice,
was imposed.  He was reduced to airman basic.  On  25  March  1958,  he  was
charged for being out of  uniform  and  disorderly  in  station.   For  this
incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice,
was imposed.  He was reduced to airman basic.  On or about  24  March  1959,
he was charged for being disorderly in station.  For this incident,  he  was
tried and convicted by a summary court-martial.  He was  reduced  to  airman
basic, sentenced to perform hard labor for thirty (30) days and  to  forfeit
seventy dollars ($70) of his pay.

On 14 June 1959 and 18 June 1959, the applicant was charged for  failure  to
repair.  From 17 July 1959 to 24  July  1959,  he  was  charged  with  being
absent without leave.  For these incidents, he was tried and convicted by  a
summary court-martial.  He was sentenced to perform hard  labor  for  thirty
(30) days and to forfeit seventy dollars ($70) of his pay.

On 26  August  1959,  discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the
applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).  The applicant was
advised  of  his  rights  and  that  an  undesirable  discharge  would   be
recommended.  On 26 August 1959, after consulting military  legal  counsel,
the applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers  and
to submit  statements  for  review.   On  1  October  1959,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be
furnished an  Undesirable  Discharge  certificate.   8  October  1959,  the
applicant was discharged under the provisions  of  AFR  39-17  (Unfitness),
with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was  furnished
an Undesirable Discharge certificate.  He was  credited  with  2  years,  5
months and 2 days of total active service.  Time lost was 58  days  due  to
AWOL and confinement.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative  report  pertaining  to  the  applicant,
which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 March 2005, a copy of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for  review  and  response.   On  25  March  2005,  a  letter  was
forwarded to  applicant  suggesting  that  he  consider  providing  evidence
pertaining to his post-service activities.  On 6 April 2005, a copy  of  the
FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review  and  comment.   As  of
this date, this office has not received a response to any of  the  foregoing
correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant’s request  and  the  available  evidence  of  record,  we  see  no
evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization  of  service.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence  which
would lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file  is
erroneous,  that  his  substantial  rights  were  violated,  or   that   his
commanders abused  their  discretionary  authority.   In  addition,  an  FBI
record provided information pertaining to  the  applicant  indicates  recent
involvement with law enforcement authorities.  In view of the above  and  in
the  absence  of  expansive  evidence  by  the  applicant  attesting  to   a
successful post-service adjustment in the years after his  last  involvement
with civil law enforcement  authorities,  we  are  not  inclined  to  extend
clemency in this case.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
05-00289:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, AFBCMR dated 18 Mar 05,
                25 Mar 05 and 6 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report, dated 30 Mar 05.




                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair