RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00982
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 JUNE 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was  offered  to  him  as  a  compromise  due  to  a  racially
motivated incident initiated by a noncommissioned officer who was  about  to
retire.  He has been bothered by his discharge for many  years  because  his
intention was to serve his country for his full enlistment term.

In support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
separation document (DD 214).  The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 June 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 18 in the grade of private for a period of 4 years.  He  was  temporarily
promoted to the rank of airman third class with a date of rank of 16  August
1951.  He was reduced to the grade of airman  basic  effective  and  with  a
date of rank of 16 June 1952.

The following is a  resume  of  the  applicant’s  character  and  efficiency
ratings:

      CHARACTER  EFFICIENCY

29 August 1951   Excellent   Excellent
26 October 1951  Very Good   Satisfactory
12 November 1951 Unknown     Unknown
19 February 1952 Good  Satisfactory

The applicant’s service record indicates he was Absent Without Leave  on  21
April 1952, 30 April 1952 to 4 May 1952, and 2 June 1952 - 4 June 1952.   On
12  June  1952,  the  applicant’s  commander   submitted   a   request   for
Disciplinary  Action  through  the  Commanding  Officer  to  the   applicant
notifying him of his proposal to impose punishment pursuant  to  Article  15
as to such offenses  unless  trial  by  court  martial  was  demanded.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt, and did not demand trial in lieu  of  action
under Article 15.  On 16 June 1952, the applicant was reduced to  the  grade
of basic airman and reprimanded for being absent without leave from  2  June
1952 to 4 June 1952.

On 25 June 1952, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a request  for
the applicant to appear before a Board of Officers, under the provisions  of
AFR 39-16, to determine if he was inapt or unsuitable for further  retention
in  the  United  States  Air  Force  (as  indicated  in  a   report   by   a
psychiatrist).  Additionally, he  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  been
interviewed and counseled on several occasions,  and  displayed  a  lack  of
desire to adapt himself to the role of an airman and be  a  benefit  to  the
service.

On  7  July  1952,  a  Board  of  Officers  was  convened  to  consider  the
commander’s recommendation.  The applicant was present, and it is  indicated
in the proceedings that he expressed his desire to be  discharged  from  the
service.  He stated he did  not  desire  a  copy  of  the  board  record  of
proceedings. He also chose to present his own case without defense  counsel.
  The  board  found  evidence  of  habits  which  rendered  the  applicant’s
retention in the service unsuitable, and recommended he be  discharged  from
military service because of unsuitability and given a general discharge.

On  25  July  1952,  the  discharge  authority  reviewed  the  findings  and
recommendations of  the  Board  of  Officers,  and  approved  the  discharge
recommendation.

On 8 August 1952, the applicant was  separated  from  military  service  and
discharged Under Honorable Conditions (General).  He had served  1  year,  1
month and 11 days on active duty with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify an arrest record pertaining  to  the  applicant  on  the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  indicates  the  discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.   Additionally,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence,
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing, or provide any facts warranting a change  to  his  character  of
service.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response dated 20 May 2005, the applicant stated all the findings  in
the advisory  opinion  were  factual.   He  had  no  problems  during  basic
training and was considered for a good conduct medal.  The Air Force  deemed
him  suitable  for  airplane  and  engine  mechanics   school.    He   began
experiencing problems in school because he did  not  have  a  background  in
math, and the classes were beyond his comprehension.  He was transferred  to
the motor pool and did  well  until  he  encountered  several  incidents  of
racial prejudice.  If he had not  gone  AWOL,  he  would  have  been  killed
(Exhibit E).  In response to a  request  for  post-service  accomplishments,
the applicant submitted  a  personal  statement,  and  three  (3)  character
reference letters (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  find  no   impropriety   in   the
characterization of applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and  we
do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated  or
that applicant was not afforded all the rights  to  which  entitled  at  the
time of discharge.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate  based  on
the existing  circumstances.   We  note  the  applicant  has  provided  some
information pertaining to his post-service  activities.   However,  we  find
this evidence limited in scope and insufficiently expansive in view  of  the
more than 50 years that have elapsed since  his  separation  to  warrant  an
upgrade to his discharge based on clemency.  In view of the  above  we  find
no basis to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________




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 in  Executive  Session  on  20
September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2005-00982:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 March 2005 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 29 April 2005.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05, and AFBCMR
                  dated 16 May 2005.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 May 05, w/atchs.



      B. J. WHITE-OLSON
      Panel Chair