RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00907
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The court released him from all charges and restored  the  lost  days,  rank
and gave him back pay.  He indicates he is in need of medical benefits.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Portions of the applicant's military personnel  records  were  destroyed  by
fire in 1973 at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC)  in  St.  Louis,
Missouri.

The available records indicate the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 1 February 1954 in the grade of airman basic for a period  of  four
years.

A sworn statement from a fellow  airman  taken  by  the  adjutant,  dated  4
October 1955 indicates - “One particular morning, I awoke  Airman  W---  for
detail and told him to report for work.  Approximately thirty  (30)  minutes
later, I again awoke him and ordered him to get out of bed  and  report  for
work.  He did not report nor could he be found  in  the  Squadron  a  little
later.  Approximately one (1) hour  later  a  call  was  received  from  the
3399th Student Squadron, stating that Airman W--- was found asleep in  their
squadron.  The Squadron Commander,  Adjutant,  T&O  Counselors  as  well  as
myself have repeatedly interviewed and counseled Airman W--- and  have  used
every approach within  reason  to  rehabilitate  him  to  a  useful  service
career.  He rebuffed and resented every gesture of friendship  and  aid.   I
consider Airman W--- a detriment to the United States Air Force and  totally
unfit for further military service.”

A certificate  from  the  applicant’s  commander,  dated  28  October  1955,
indicates the following:  “I assumed command of the 3380th Student  Squadron
on 6  July  1954.   Airman  Basic  M---  W---  Jr.,  was  a  member  of  the
organization at that time.  As W---s’  commander,  I  recommended  trial  by
Summary Court Martial on two  (2)  separate  occasions.   The  first,  on  4
December 1954 for making a false official statement to an air policeman  for
which he was found guilty.  The second on 16 December  1954,  he  was  tried
for absent without official leave and being  in  improper  uniform.   During
Airman W---‘s assignment to my  squadron,  he  continually  associated  with
other  airmen  of  poor  character,  failed  to  maintain  a  neat  personal
appearance, and he kept a disorderly barracks room at all times.  Airman W--
- was not dependable and on many occasions the first sergeant had to go  and
get him out of bed after the start of the  normal  duty  day.   I  counseled
Airman W--- on many occasions prior to his entry into the  guard  house  and
as a prisoner, but he was never receptive to counseling.  Since  his  return
to Keesler Air Force Base, I have noted a change in Airman W---‘s  attitude;
however, due to his past record, I believe this is  an  attitude  change  of
the moment and will not last.”

A certificate  from  the  applicant’s  commander,  dated  9  November  1955,
indicates the following:  “Airman does  not  work  diligently  to  keep  his
record clean in order to merit a discharge which would prove  beneficial  to
him.  His recurring misdemeanors prove to be  a  liability  rather  than  an
asset to the service.  Subject airman does not care about  himself  or  what
becomes of himself in the Military Service.  This airman  does  not  respond
to  punishment  in  the  way  a   normal   airman   should.    Any   further
rehabilitation measures deemed not  worth  while.   Airman  W---  should  be
given an undesirable  discharge  under  the  provisions  of  the  Air  Force
Regulation 39-17.”

The commander of the 3380th Technical  Training  Group,  Keesler  Air  Force
Base, Mississippi, approved the discharge without board action and  directed
the applicant be discharged under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17  with  an
undesirable discharge.

On 18 November 1955 the applicant was discharged  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.   He
served 1 year, 2 months, and 12 days total active service with 216  days  of
lost time.




Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, W.V., provided an investigative  report  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating the applicant did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He contends 216 days of lost time  was  restored  and
the court released him from all charges; restoring the lost days,  rank  and
gave him back pay.  He provided no court documents  or  facts  warranting  a
change to his character of service.  Based on the documentation that  is  on
file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with  the
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   The  discharge  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated he was imprisoned for  a
crime he did not commit.  The  court  released  him  from  all  charges  and
restored the lost days, rank and gave him back pay.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

On 30 June 2005, the Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  G).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 25 July 2005, the applicant was provided the opportunity  to  respond  to
the FBI investigation within 20 days (Exhibit  H).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting  the  applicant’s  undesirable
discharge be  upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge.   The  Board  believes
responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  effecting   the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.   In  this  respect,
we note  the  applicant’s  continued  misconduct  following  his  discharge.
Further, when given the opportunity to  provide  information  regarding  his
post-service activities and accomplishments, he failed to do so.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
00907 in Executive Session on 14 September 2005,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 March 2005.
   Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 June 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 July 2005, w/atch.




                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                       Panel Chair