RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00749
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  04 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)  discharge  be
upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a prior honorable discharge from the National  Guard.   He  has
been a good citizen since discharge.  Clemency is warranted because it
is an injustice for him to suffer the adverse consequences  of  a  bad
discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.
 Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 December 1954 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He was promoted  to
airman first class on 25 February 1955 and demoted to airman basic  on
23 November 1956 by reason of the sentence of a Summary Court-Martial.
 His character and efficiency were  rated  excellent  on  15  December
1954, 7 April 1955 and 19 Octover 1955, and poor and unsatisfactory on
29 August 1956.

On 8 February  1957,  applicant’s  commander  recommended  appropriate
action be initiated under the provisions of AFR 39-17 to separate  him
with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.
 The basis for this recommendation was applicant was  tried  by  three
summary  court-martials  for  repeatedly   committing   offenses   and
infractions of rules and regulations by failure to go to his appointed
place of duty and breach of restriction imposed by  a  duly  appointed
summary court.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of
discharge and his  understanding  he  was  entitled  to  an  impartial
hearing by a board of officers.  He also acknowledged he was  entitled
to legal counsel and he could present evidence and call  witnesses  in
his own behalf.  He waived his rights to a hearing before a  board  of
officers and requested discharge without benefit of board proceedings.
 The discharge authority approved the  separation  and  directed  that
applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable  conditions
(undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 8 March 1957  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of  Airmen  Because  of  Unfitness,
with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.
 He had served 5 years, 1 month and 29 days on active duty.

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:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on  file  in  the  master
personnel records, the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.    The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 March 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 31  March  2005,
an FBI Report was requested  and  applicant  was  invited  to  provide
information pertaining to his activities  since  leaving  the  service
(Exhibit E).

Applicant provided a statement saying he is not attempting to  correct
any records but to change his type of discharge from an undesirable to
one that doesn’t prevent him from any and all benefits.  What is  done
is done and no one can change that.  What he is saying is that for the
last 33 years he has been a responsible  citizen  with  no  exception.
Except for the few minor exceptions noted in the FBI  report,  he  has
changed significantly since serving in the Air Force.

As a result of his recent years of being a responsible citizen he felt
he deserved consideration and therefore he requested this review.   He
recently spent over nine years full time caring for his  father  (four
months), his aunt (one year), and his stepmother  (nine  years)  until
they all passed away.  During this time he was able to reflect on  his
past and decided even it he was unsuccessful at getting his  discharge
changed, he had to try.

As for the FBI report, there are one or  two  items  that  he  has  no
recollection of, but he is  unable  to  supply  any  documentation  to
dispute them.  Also  since  the  document  is  written  in  terms  and
abbreviations that he cannot fully  understand,  he  must  assume  the
record is reasonably accurate.

The bottom line is he  feels  in  spite  of  his  past  record,  which
occurred during his younger years, the majority of his  life,  he  has
been a responsible citizen, and therefore, appeals to  the  Board  for
their understanding and awaits their decision (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant has provided no evidence  showing  the  information  in  his
records is erroneous, his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In addition, in view
of the evidence contained in the FBI investigative report and  in  the
absence  of  documentary  evidence  substantiating   the   applicant’s
assertion that he has made a successful post  service  adjustment,  we
are not inclined to act favorably on the applicant’s request based  on
the clemency.  Therefore, the applicant’s  request  is  not  favorably
considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR and AFBCMR, dated 18 Mar 05
                       and 31 Mar 05.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair