RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03695
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 Jun 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Unsuitability be removed from his DD Form 214 as the  reason  for  his
discharge from the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not feel that unsuitability should be on his record  since  he
was willing and able to serve and completed his training.  He did  not
request discharge, but was told he had no choice  because  his  mother
had asked the Red Cross to bring him home to  raise  his  brother  and
sister.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  his  discharge
certificate and DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force as an airman  basic
on 2 Dec 52.  On 16 Feb 53, the applicant’s commander  recommended  he
appear before a Board of Officers, under the provisions of AFR  39-16,
to determine whether or not he was unsuitable for further retention in
the Air Force based on the following:

         a.  Applicant  had  shown  a  marked   unsuitability   toward
adjusting to the responsibilities of military life.

        b.  Applicant received punishment  under  Article  15  on  two
occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL).

        c.  Applicant demonstrated a character and  behavior  disorder
demonstrated by a defective attitude and emotional instability.

The applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  to  appear
before a board of officers and did not desire to call any witnesses in
his own behalf and did not desire to consult counsel.

On 25 Feb 53, a board of officers convened to consider the applicant’s
case and subsequently recommended he be discharged  from  the  service
due to unsuitability, with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  The recommendation was approved by the discharge authority

The applicant was discharged effective 11  Mar  53  for  unsuitability
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the  applicant’s  appeal.   They  note
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  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation the applicant states  that
the statement he has previously applied to the Discharge Review  Board
to upgrade his clearance is incorrect.  The applicant  states  he  has
always understood he was given a discharge  that  was  honorable,  but
questions how he could have an honorable discharge when he is  accused
of being AWOL and having received an Article 15.  He  states  he  does
not remember ever receiving an Article 15.  The applicant indicates he
is requesting to have the facts of his discharge clarified.

The applicant again reiterates that  he  was  discharged  due  to  his
mother’s request through the Red Cross.  He  states  he  requested  to
remain in service but was told he had to go  home.   He  was  told  he
could not be given a hardship discharge, but would receive  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

The applicant requests the location of his master personnel file  with
the documentation regarding his discharge.  He states he searched  for
it and was told there were no files left from Parks Air Force Base and
that they had been destroyed when transferred to  another  base.   The
applicant requests the name  of  the  commander  that  recommended  he
appear before a board of officers under AFR 39-16.  He also  wants  to
know how he could go AWOL and not be severely punished.

The applicant requests that he be provided a copy of his record so  he
can see what has been said about him and so he can understand what has
happened to him.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

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  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, we have  verified  the
existence of the derogatory information contained in  the  applicant’s
record and as summarized in the Air Force  evaluation.   We  note  the
applicant requests he be provided a  copy  of  his  record.   However,
since we are not the custodian of his records, we are unable to comply
with his request.  It is recommended  that  he  contact  the  National
Personnel Record Center in St Louis, Missouri to officially request  a
copy of his records.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in 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-
03695 in Executive Session on 24 January 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair