RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02048
      INDEX CODE:  110.00

      COUNSEL:  NONE
      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  1 NOVEMBER 2006

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive a bad conduct discharge.  He was immature (only 17  years
of age) when he entered military service.  He was not aware of his  actions.
 He is a long-standing member of the American Legion.   He  has  proved  his
allegiance to America for over 50 years.  He tried  to  enlist  in  the  Air
Force again in 1955.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submits   his   personal
statement.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 December 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force at the  age  of
17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years.

The applicant received one character and efficiency rating  of  “excellent,”
dated 14 January 1952.

On 4 January 1952, the applicant was convicted by  a  summary  court-martial
for being AWOL during the period of 22 December 1951 to 2 January 1952.   He
was sentenced to perform hard labor for 14 days and forfeiture of $40.00.

On 22 January 1952, he was convicted by a summary  court-martial  for  being
AWOL during  the  period  of  16-21  January  1952.   He  was  sentenced  to
confinement at hard labor for 15 days and forfeiture of $25.00.

On 23 February 1952, he was convicted by a summary court-martial  for  being
AWOL during the period of 17-20 January 1952.  He was sentenced  to  perform
hard labor for two hours per day for 14 days.

On 21 March 1952, the applicant’s commanding  officer  submitted  a  Request
for Board Action under provisions of AFR  39-17,  indicating  the  applicant
was unfit for  retention  in  the  Air  Force  because  of  his  indifferent
attitude toward the  service  and  his  fellow  airman.   He  indicated  the
applicant’s   character   and   efficiency   ratings   were    “Good”    and
“Unsatisfactory,” respectively.  Additionally, he  stated  all  attempts  at
rehabilitation had failed.

On 21 March  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. The board found evidence of traits of character which  rendered
retention in the service undesirable, and recommended he be discharged  from
military service for unfitness.

On 22  March  1952,  the  discharge  authority  reviewed  the  findings  and
recommendations of  the  Board  of  Officers,  and  approved  the  discharge
recommendation.

On 4  April  1952,  the  applicant  was  discharged  for  unfitness  with  a
characterization of service of undesirable.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an  investigative  report  pertaining  to  the  applicant
(Identification Record No. 457522F), which is at Exhibit F.

On 9 August 1955, the applicant submitted a similar application to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting  his  undesirable  discharge
be upgraded to honorable.  On 28 September 1955, the  AFRDB  concluded  that
the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the  type  or
nature of the applicant’s discharge, and the request was denied.  The  AFDRB
Examiner’s brief is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

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, DPPPRS stated 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:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  5
August 2005 for review and comment.  On  25  August  2005,  a  copy  of  the
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigations  (FBI)  report  was  forwarded  to   the
applicant.  As of this date, this office has received no response to any  of
the  aforementioned  correspondence  (Exhibit  D).   In  response   to   our
invitation for post-service activity information,  the  applicant  submitted
his comments dated 23 August 2005 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  to  the
existing circumstances. Although the applicant has provided some  statements
concerning post-service conduct, we find these  statements  insufficient  to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.   In  view  of
the above we find no basis to warrant favorable action on 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 9 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. August Doddato, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-02048:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 07 Aug 05 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 5 Aug 05;
      Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Aug 05, w/atch;
      Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  FBI Investigative Report.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 05, w/atchs.






                                  CATHYLNN B. SPARKS
                                  Panel Chair