RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01278
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 OCT 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged prior to being tried  in  court.   In  1985,  the
Supreme Court overturned  all  convictions  for  persons  convicted
without an attorney.

He was fifteen when he joined  the  national  guard  and  became  a
supply sergeant with a  corporal  rank  at  age  sixteen.   He  was
recognized on  several  occasions  for  keeping  his  equipment  in
excellent condition.  When he was seventeen he joined the Air Force
in electronics, which he did not  like.   After  being  transferred
into supply, he was sent to Florida.

There he began to drink and developed  a  taste  for  alcohol.   It
became the strongest most addictive desire in his life.   He  began
to look for means  to  support  his  addiction  for  which  he  was
convicted.

He spent eighteen months in state prison and  was  paroled.   After
being paroled, he went back to high school, four years of  college,
married and fathered three children.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the  Armed  Forces
of the United States, dated 27 Mar  56;  Honorable  Discharge  form
from Army National Guard, dated 17 May 55, and NGB Form 23.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review,  applicant  served  in  the  Army
National Guard until he was honorably discharged on 17 May 55.   He
was promoted to the grade of corporal (E-4).  Applicant enlisted in
the Regular Air Force on 19 May 55 for a period of  four  years  in
the grade of airman basic (E-1).

Applicant received character and efficiency  ratings  of  excellent
from 19 May 55 – 12 Aug 55; from  25  Aug  55  –  4  Oct  55;  from
5 Oct 55 – 21 Oct 55, and from 1 Nov 55 – 27 Mar 56, his  character
rating was poor and his efficiency rating was unsatisfactory.

AF Form 1226, Record of Previous Convictions and Time Lost  reflect
military confinement from 15 Feb 56 – 21 Feb 56 (6 days).  Civilian
court  conviction  consisted  of  confinement  from  21  Feb  56  –
17 Mar 56 (36 days).

Special Order Number 63 reflects applicant was confined by civilian
authority in the Florida State Penitentiary.

On 27 Mar 56, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-22 by reason  of  conviction  in  a  civil  court,  with  an
undesirable discharge, with service characterized  as  under  other
than honorable conditions.  He was  credited  with  8  months,  and
27 days of active duty service (excludes 42 days of lost  time  due
to confinement).

On 10  Sep  69,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied applicant’s request  to  have  his  discharge
upgraded and for  a  waiver  to  permit  reenlistment.   The  AFDRB
considered all the evidence of record and concluded that  a  change
in the type or nature of his discharge was not warranted.

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 the applicant’s request and recommended  his
request be denied.  Based on the documentation  from  the  previous
review by the AFDRB they found that 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  and  that  he
provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the charge of burglary is not true.   He  and  his
wife had separated and she took his baseball collection and he went
to her apartment and got it back.  They later  went  back  together
and the charge was dismissed.  Applicant gave a  brief  summary  of
his accomplishments after discharge.

At the time he was charged for robbery, he had no attorney.  He was
only seventeen but was tried as an adult or  held  in  county  jail
until he became eighteen.

In support of appeal, applicant provided a copy of previous Supreme
Court rulings, and a letter of recommendation,  signed  by  several
residents of his place of work.

Applicant complete response, with attachments, is at 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 events which precipitated the discharge, and
the contents of the FBI  report,  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-2005-01278 in Executive Session on 13 September 2005, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jul 05, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair