RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
03022
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 APRIL 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He deserved the discharge he received, but that was 43  years  ago;
he has been a good citizen since.

In 1962 he was young and didn’t realize what could happen due to  a
bad mistake.  He has paid his dues and  learned  his  lesson  years
ago.  He is thinking about retiring in  the  near  future  and  the
benefits would be nice.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  9  Jan  61,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman third class (E-2).

On 26 Jul 61, applicant was convicted by summary court-martial  for
being AWOL from on or about (o/a) 7 Jul 61 to o/a 25  Jul  61.   He
was sentenced to hard labor for 30 days, forfeiture of $25,  and  a
reduction in grade to airman basic.

On 23 Mar 62, applicant was convicted by summary court-martial  for
being AWOL from o/a 13 Mar 62 to o/a 21 Mar 62.  He  was  sentenced
to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a reduction  in  grade
to airman basic.

On 3 Apr 62, applicant was convicted by the --- District  Court  of
the State of Texas, Potter County of assault with intent to rob; he
was given four years of probation.

On 16 Apr 62, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  for  a  civil
court  conviction.   The  commander  recommended  he   receive   an
undesirable discharge.

On 16 Apr 62, after consulting with counsel, applicant acknowledged
receipt of the discharge notification and waived  his  right  to  a
hearing before a board of officers and did not submit statements in
his own behalf.

On 19 Apr 62, the discharge authority approved the  separation  and
directed that the applicant be separated with an under  other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 26 Apr 62, in the grade of airman basic
(E-1),  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-22,   with   separation
designation number 284 (Involuntarily  discharged  for  misconduct,
civil court disposition, processed by waiver of  entitlement  to  a
board hearing), and  was  issued  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 2
months, and 12 days of active military service (excludes 37 days of
lost time due to AWOL and confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided  a  copy  of  an
investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural  and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.   The  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.   Additionally,  the  applicant   provided   no   facts
warranting a change to the character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant does not dispute the results of his civil conviction.  He
was the driver of the automobile involved and was unaware  of  what
the other party was going to do.  When he realized what the  person
was planning, it was too late to drive away, although he wished  he
had.  He was guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong  time.
He has tried to be a good citizen and be law  abiding  since  1962.
He is embarrassed and ashamed of what had occurred and has tried to
use it as a valuable lesson in becoming a  responsible  and  decent
man and citizen (Exhibit E).

On 21 Nov 05, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity
to provide information pertaining to his activities  since  leaving
the service.  The applicant responded with two letters of character
reference  and  several  documents  pertaining  to   his   civilian
employment.

In response to the FBI Report of  Investigation,  applicant  states
there are two-------------------- listed, and that the  information
is incorrect.  Charges 1 and 2 pertain to his service  in  the  Air
Force, and Charge 3 occurred in St. Louis while he was driving  his
family car.  He was not aware a gun was in the car.  Charge 4 was a
foolish prank by some C.B. radio enthusiasts, and again the officer
took the gun, no arrest was made, and all charges were dropped.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the discharge  appears  to
be in compliance with the governing regulations in  effect  at  the
time and we find no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  applicant’s
separation from the  Air  Force  was  inappropriate.   We  find  no
evidence of error in this case and after  of  thoroughly  reviewing
the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant’s
appeal, we do not  believe  he  has  suffered  from  an  injustice.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record,  we  find  no
basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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-
03022 in Executive Session on 11 January 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Nov 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Dec 05, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair