RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
02327
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 JANUARY 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has lived with this for 48 years and believes it is time  for  a
change.  He has served his punishment in full.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form
214, Armed Forces of  the  United  States  Report  of  Transfer  or
Discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit
A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15  Jun  54,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman second class.

On 5 Jun 56, applicant was convicted by summary  court-martial  for
disobeying a lawful order from a superior non-commissioned  officer
on or about 27 May 56, to lower his voice and  stop  using  profane
language.  He was sentenced to restriction to base for 45 days  and
a forfeiture of $60.

On 13 Sep 56, applicant received an Article 15 for being disorderly
and out of uniform on or about 22 Aug 56.  Punishment  imposed  was
reduction in grade to airman third class.

On 29 Apr 57, applicant was convicted by summary court-martial  for
being drunk and disorderly in a public place on or about 1 Apr  57.
He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for  15  days  and  a
forfeiture of $50.

The applicant’s squadron commander notified the applicant  that  he
was recommending he be discharged from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions  of  AFR  39-17  for  unfitness.   The  basis  for  this
recommendation was since 1 Jun 56, there had been a steady  decline
in applicant’s duty effectiveness and his off duty conduct had been
extremely poor.  He had two summary court-martials and a  reduction
under Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly as  well  as  being
disrespectful to a superior non-commissioned officer.

On 17 May 57, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge action and waived his rights to a hearing by a  board  of
officers and requested  discharge  without  the  benefit  of  board
proceedings.  He acknowledged his understanding that if his request
was approved, his separation  from  the  Air  Force  may  be  under
conditions  other  than  honorable  and  that  he  may  receive  an
undesirable discharge.  Legal counsel had been  made  available  to
applicant and he voluntarily requested discharge.  On  21  Jun  57,
the discharge authority approved the separation and  directed  that
the applicant be discharged with  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 16 Jul  57,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17,   with   Separation
Designation Number (SDN) 488 (Unfitness), and service characterized
as under other than honorable  conditions  (undesirable).   He  was
credited with 3 years  and  19  days  of  active  military  service
(excludes 13 days of lost time due to confinement).

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 30 August 2005, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West  Virginia,  indicated  on
6 September 2005, that, on the basis of data  furnished,  they  are
unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that 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.   Additionally,  the  applicant  provided  no
evidence or identified any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change
to the character of service.

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

___________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 Aug 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).

In response to the AFBCMR staff’s invitation to provide information
pertaining  to  his  activities  since  leaving  the  service,  the
applicant provided a personal statement stating he had  a  drinking
problem and too much free time  when  all  this  took  place.   His
drinking problem was cured  two  years  after  his  discharge.   He
married his wife in 1962, and  has  one  son.   His  wife  recently
passed on 8 Jun 05.  He outlined his civilian employment from  1955
through 1999.  He states he has suffered for  48  years  and  would
like to have his discharge upgraded before he passes away.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  After  a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record,  the
applicant’s  discharge  appears  to  be  in  compliance  with   the
governing regulations in effect at the time and we find no evidence
that his discharge was  erroneous  or  unjust.   Nevertheless,  the
applicant  has  had  to  live  with  the  adverse  effects  of  his
undesirable discharge for over 48 years, and  while  the  discharge
may have been appropriate at the time, we believe it  would  be  an
injustice  for  him  to  continue  to  suffer  from  its   effects.
Following a review of  the  applicant’s  statement  concerning  his
activities since leaving the service, and noting that the  FBI  did
not have an arrest record on him, it appears that  he  has  been  a
responsible citizen and productive  member  of  society  since  his
separation.    Therefore,   we   believe   an   upgrade   of    the
characterization of  his  discharge  to  general  (under  honorable
conditions) is warranted on the basis of clemency.  In view of  his
overall record of service and the repeated misconduct that  led  to
his discharge, we are not persuaded that further relief in the form
of a fully  honorable  discharge  is  warranted.   Accordingly,  we
recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below.
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 16  July  1957,
he was discharged with  service  characterized  as  general  (under
honorable conditions).
___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02327 in Executive Session on 19 October  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Aug 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 05.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Sep 05.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2005-02327




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that on 16 July
1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general
(under honorable conditions).





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency
                           AFBCMR CUSTOMER SURVEY


BOARD DECISION         GRANT DENY


TIMELINESS


1.  How long, from the time you first submitted your application, did you
wait for the final decision?

      a.  4 months     b.  8 months     c.  12 months    d.  more than 12
months

2.  How long, from the time you first submitted your application, did you
wait for an Advisory Opinion from the Air Force?

      a.  2 months     b.  4 months     c.  6 months     d.  more than 6
months

COURTESY

1.  If you made any telephone inquiries, were you treated in a courteous
and professional manner?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be improved  d.  N/A

2.  Were you provided a response on a timely basis?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be improved  d.  N/A

3.  If you made any written inquiries, were you provided a timely and
accurate response?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be improved  d.  N/A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

The Record of Proceedings (ROP) contains a summary of your request, your
contentions, the facts, Air Force evaluation, your rebuttal, if any, and
the conclusion and recommendation by the Board.  With this in mind,

1.  Were your requests and contentions accurately stated?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be improved  d.  N/A

2.  Did the Air Force advisory(ies) adequately and objectively address
the issue?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be improved  d.  N/A

3.  Were you provided adequate time to respond to Air Force
advisory(ies)?

      a.  Yes          b.  No

4.  Was the rationale of the AFBCMR or the Air Force responsive to the
issues raised?

      a.  Yes          b.  No           c.  Could be better    d.  Missed
the point


COMMENTS

Please use the space below for any additional comments that would help us
to improve our processing of future cases.