RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00723
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 SEP 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was under the belief  that  when  he  was  discharged  from  the
service that his  discharge  would  be  automatically  upgraded  to
honorable after six months.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  1  Nov  55  for  a
period of four years.

On 16 Dec 58, under the provisions of AFR 39-17,  paragraphs  3a(1)
and (3), Discharge of  Airmen  Because  of  Unfitness,  applicant’s
commander recommended  the  applicant  appear  before  a  Board  of
Officers to determine if he should be discharged from the Air Force
for unfitness.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On 27 Jun 56, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
illegal possession and altering DD Form  2AF  (ID  Card).   He  was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 30 days.

On 20 Nov 56, applicant received  an  Article  15  for  creating  a
disturbance and resisting  arrest.   His  punishment  consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman basic.


On 10 Jun 58, he received an Article 15 for being drunk  and  using
abusive language.  For this offense, he was given  a  reduction  in
grade to airman basic.

On 24 Jul 58,  he  received  Article  15  punishment  for  bringing
discredit upon the military service.  His punishment  consisted  of
two weeks of extra duty.

On 19 Nov 58, applicant was punished under  Article  15  for  being
disorderly.  For which he received two weeks of extra duty.

On 15 Mar 58, applicant  was  arrested  by  civil  authorities  for
driving while intoxicated.  For this offense, he was given  a  fine
of $100 and 10 days confinement.

On 24 Jul 58, applicant was apprehended by  civil  authorities  for
being drunk  and  fighting,  for  which  he  was  released  to  his
commander.

On 26 Jul 58, applicant  was  arrested  by  civil  authorities  for
illegal possession of liquor.  His punishment consisted of 27  days
of confinement.

On 28 Nov 58, applicant  was  arrested  by  civil  authorities  for
creating a disturbance.  For which he received a $25 fine and a six-
months suspended sentence.

On 19 Dec 58, applicant requested an impartial hearing by  a  Board
of Officers, that a senior NCO be appointed  as  a  member  of  the
board convenedd to hear his case, and that an officer be  appointed
as his defense council.

A Board of Officers convened on 12 Jan 59, found that applicant had
exhibited evidence of habits and traits of character which rendered
retention in the service undesirable.  They  recommended  applicant
be discharged for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

On 11 Feb 59, the commander approved an undesirable  discharge  and
directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.”  On 13 Feb  59,  applicant  was  discharged
under the provisions of AFR 39-17, with  service  characterized  as
under other  than  honorable  conditions.   He  was  credited  with
3 years, 1 month, and 15 days active service (excludes 58  days  of
lost time due to confinement).

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:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They found the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he  provide  any
facts warranting an upgrade of his  discharge.   Accordingly,  they
recommended his records remain the same.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the FBI report, applicant states  that  even  though
the report shows continued  incidents  up  to  1994,  some  of  the
incidents were dismissed.  He has not been  in  any  trouble  since
1994 and has not had any alcohol since then (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.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  In addition, based on his  overall
record of service, the contents of the FBI report, and the  absence
of  evidence   related   to   his   post-service   activities   and
accomplishments, we are  not  persuaded  that  an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge is  warranted  on  the  basis  of
clemency.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00723 in Executive Session  on  23  June  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Apr 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair