RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00467
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
    XXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL:  NONE
    XXXXXXXXXXXX                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 AUGUST 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He can not justify his actions during his military  service  other  than  he
was  very  young  and  came  from  a  dysfunctional  sexually  abused   home
environment.  The Air Force seemed to be a good way to break  away  and  his
mother agreed he should enlist.  The two summary courts-martial and the  two
30-day incarcerations in the stockade helped him to grow up.  He  has  never
been in trouble since leaving the  military.   He  has  owned  and  operated
bowling centers for over 25 years.  He has been married since  3  May  1963,
raised four children and has six  grandchildren  and  one  great-grandchild.
He deserved the punishments he  received  from  the  Air  Force  but  firmly
believes he deserves an  upgrade  of  his  general  discharge  to  honorable
because  the  military  setting  contributed,  in  part,  to  his  continued
downward spiral.  His days on earth are short and he would like to  have  an
honorable discharge from the Air Force so that his legacy at  least  to  his
children and grandchildren can be complete.  He has  been  a  model  citizen
since his discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 April 1960, 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), with a date of rank of  6
June 1960 and 9 December 1960.  He was reduced to the grade of airman  basic
with a date of rank of 20 September 1960  and  12  July  1962,  pursuant  an
Article 15 and summary court-martial.

From 5 September 1960 to 7 September 1960, he was charged with being  Absent
Without Leave (AWOL).  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 (suspended for  120  days),  and  to
forfeit thirty ($30) dollars of his pay.

On 4 February 1962, he was arrested by  civil  police  on  an  open  charge.
Specifically, it was reported he created a disorder by drinking  beer  in  a
car in the company of a female minor.  For  this  incident,  he  received  a
Letter of Reprimand.

On 12 April 1962, a letter of indebtedness was received.  It  was  indicated
he was in the arrears of $30.00 or five payments to his account.  On  11 May
1962, the company requested a return of the merchandise.

On 20 April 1962, a letter of indebtedness was received.  It  was  indicated
that, on 10 February 1962, he had secured a loan in the  amount  of  $483.19
payable by 24 payments each, on which he had made no payments.

On 12 July 1962, punishment under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) was imposed on the applicant for being absent from  his  duty
section for one and  a  half  hours  without  proper  authority.   For  this
incident, he was reduced to basic airman.

On 9 August 1962, he was convicted by summary court martial  for  wrongfully
appropriating and pawning a Parker  Pen  Set  of  another  airman.   He  was
sentenced to 30 days of confinement and $40 forfeiture of his pay.

On 14 September 1962, following an interview with  the  applicant  based  on
his  commander’s  request  for  a  psychiatric  evaluation,  the   examining
physician indicated the appropriate diagnosis in the  applicant’s  case  was
inadequate personality.  The examining  physician  concluded  the  applicant
was unfit for  further  military  service  and  should  be  administratively
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Unsuitability).

On 27  August  1962,  discharge  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the
applicant under the provisions of AFR 39-17  (Unfitness).    The  applicant
was advised of his rights in the matter and that an  undesirable  discharge
would  be  recommended.   After  consulting  military  legal  counsel,  the
applicant waived his right to a hearing before  a  board  of  officers  and
declined to submit statements in his own  behalf.   The  applicant  further
indicated he understood that if an undesirable discharge was approved,  his
discharge would be under conditions other than  honorable.   The  discharge
case file was reviewed and found legally sufficient on 9 October 1962.   On
12  October  1962,  the  discharge  authority  approved   the   recommended
separation and  directed  the  applicant  be  issued  a  General  Discharge
certificate.  On 17 October 1962, the applicant was  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions discharge.  He was credited with 2 years, 4 months and  21  days
of  total  active  service.   Time  lost  was  52  days  due  to  AWOL  and
confinement.

On 24 March 2005, a request to the Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  (FBI)
was made and no other arrest records were found.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the  documentation  in  the  file,  they  conclude  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any  errors  or
injustices in the discharge processing.  The  Air  Force  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.  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 the information  in  his  discharge  case  file  is
erroneous,  that  his  substantial  rights  were  violated,  or   that   his
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.   However,  should  the
applicant provide  evidence  pertaining  to  his  post  service  activities,
testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know him,  he  may,  of
course, submit a request for clemency at a later time.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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
BC-2005-00467:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 05.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Mar 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, AFBCMR, dated 18 Mar 05
                 and 25 Mar 05.





                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair