RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03438
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to be buried along with his spouse at  the  New  Hampshire  State
Veterans’ Cemetery.  One  of  the  requirements  is  to  have  an  honorable
discharge.  He believes that after serving  over  16 years  of  active  duty
service he should be allowed to be buried in a military cemetery.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question, the applicant, who  had  prior  service,
reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 October 1962 for a period  of  six
years.

On 27 August 1964, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate  discharge  action  against  him  for  frequent  involvement  of  a
discreditable nature with military authorities and his  established  pattern
of financial irresponsibility.  The specific reasons follow:

         a.  On  24  March  1964,  the  applicant  received  a   letter   of
admonishment (LOA) for numerous letters concerning his failure  to  pay  his
just debts.

        b. On 8 May 1964, the applicant was involved in a domestic  incident
with his wife in Madrid, Spain, which brought discredit  upon  him  and  the
Air Force.  For this offense he received a verbal reprimand.

        c. On 16 June 1964, the applicant  did,  without  proper  authority,
fail to go at the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty,  to  wit:
Psychiatric Ward, building #108, in violation of Article  86,  Uniform  Code
of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).   For  this  offense  he  received  a  verbal
reprimand.

        d. The applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period  1
June 1963 to 31 May 1964 was derogatory in that  his  duty  performance  was
lax as a result of his financial problems.

        e. On 6 July 1964, the applicant was  administered  an  Article  15,
for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 16 June 1964  to  21
June 1964.  For this offense he was reduced in grade from staff sergeant  to
airman first class.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

        f. On 25 August 1964, the applicant was administered an Article  15,
for being AWOL during the period 18 August  1964  to  24 August  1964.   For
this offense he was reduced to the grade of airman third class,  ordered  to
forfeit $40.00 of his pay  and  ordered  into  correctional  custody  for  a
period of 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant had been counseled on  different  occasions  and  failed  to  take
command of his finances.  He further indicated there was no  evidence  of  a
successful rehabilitation.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
request a board hearing, and submit statements in his own behalf;  or  waive
the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a  statement  in  his
own behalf.

On 28 September 1964, the Assistant Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be discharged with service characterized as general.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s general discharge.

On  11  December  1964,  the   applicant   was   discharged   with   service
characterized as general  (under  honorable  conditions)  in  the  grade  of
airman third class under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17  -  Unfitness.   He
served 16 years, 2 months, and 25 days of total active duty service with  15
days of lost time.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with an arrest  record  on
the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based on the documentation  on
file in the master personnel record the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation,  and
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  also
did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   Nor  did  he  provide  any  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 December 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within  30 days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 5 January 2006, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).  The applicant provided  a
response, with attachment, which 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  an  error  or  injustice.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopts its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence to  the  contrary,
the Board presumes responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.   Therefore,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to  warrant  a  recommendation  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   The  applicant  has  not
provided information of his  post-service  activities  and  accomplishments.
Therefore, based  on  the  evidence  of  record,  we  cannot  conclude  that
clemency  is  warranted.   Should  the  applicant  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  his  good  character  and
reputation and other evidence of successful  post-service  activities,  this
Board  would  be  willing  to   review   this   information   for   possible
reconsideration of this case.  However, we cannot recommend  approval  based
on the current evidence of record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
03438 in Executive Session on 15 February 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Nov 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jan 06, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                       Panel Chair