RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01543
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 December 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The basis for his discharge, i.e., being absent without  leave  (AWOL),  was
due to physiological problems he was experiencing.  He tried to  talk  to  a
chaplain, but it did not help. In addition, his prior  period  of  honorable
service should have been considered when characterizing his service for  his
last enlistment.  He knows what he did was wrong.

In support of his appeal,  applicant  submits  several  character  reference
letters.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  14
March 1952 for a period of four years.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of airman first class (E-3).  On 15 March 1956, he  was  honorably
discharged for convenience of the government.

On 16 March 1956, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force  for  a  period  of
six years.  On 8 November 1957, applicant underwent medical examination  and
was found physically qualified for separation.  On  20  November  1957,  the
commander notified  applicant  of  his  intent  to  initiate  administrative
discharge action against him under the provisions of AFR 39-17  (Unfitness).
 The commander indicated his bases for the  action  were  applicant’s  three
summary court-martial convictions for failing to go to his place of duty  on
9 and 10 August 1957 and being AWOL during the periods 19 September 1957  to
23 September 1957 and 21 October 1957 to 23 October 1957, and an Article  15
for  stealing  food  valued  at  $2.00  from  the  dining  hall.   Applicant
consulted with legal counsel and waived his right  to  a  hearing  before  a
board of officers.  The discharge authority approved the recommended  action
and on 30 December 1957, applicant was discharged and issued an  Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  He completed a total of 5 years, 3  months,  and  17
days, excluding 83 days of lost time.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted, and states, in part, that based on  the  evidence  of  record,
applicant has had a long term history of alcohol abuse.  However,  there  is
no evidence  that  the  periods  of  AWOL  were  the  result  of  his  being
intoxicated.   Further,  he  was  never  observed  being   intoxicated,   or
possessing alcohol, while on duty.  Regardless, abuse of alcohol is  not  an
excuse for misconduct.  Applicant’s medical  records  do  not  indicate  any
impairment that would prevent him  from  distinguishing  between  right  and
wrong.  Further, his discharge was consistent  with  Air  Force  regulations
and other airmen committing similar offenses.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  9  June
2006, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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.  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.   While
the applicant contends the actions which  led  to  his  discharge  were  the
result of  physiological  problems  he  was  experiencing  at  the  time,  a
26 November 1957 medical evaluation determined  that  he  was  free  of  any
mental or physical defect and  was  capable  of  distinguishing  right  from
wrong.  We conclude, therefore, that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of establishing that the discharge proceedings were improper  and
that the characterization of the discharge was inappropriate  based  on  the
existing circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of  service,  his  previous  period  of  service
during which time he had 79 days of lost  time,  the  three  summary  court-
martial  convictions  which  precipitated  the  discharge,   and   available
evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments.   Based
on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that  clemency  is  warranted.
The character references submitted by applicant  are  noted;  however,  they
only reference the applicant’s activities over the last five to seven  years
and we do not find them sufficient to conclude  that  he  has  overcome  the
behavioral traits which caused the discharge.  In  view  of  the  above,  we
cannot recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2005-01543
in Executive Session on 12 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
                       Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair