RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03716
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 JUN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the contested time period, the applicant was 18  years  of  age.   He
was notified by his spouse that she was pregnant, very ill, and  wanted  him
to come home.  He requested leave and his request was  denied;  however,  he
left anyway.  He believes he has paid his debt over the past  50  years  and
desires his discharge be upgraded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 April 1954, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

The applicant was convicted by a  summary  court-martial  for  being  absent
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 18 December 1954  to  on  or  about  3
January 1955.  He was sentenced to restriction to the limits of  Dover  AFB,
Delaware, for two months and a reduction in grade  to  airman  basic  and  a
forfeiture of $28.00 of his pay for one month.  The  sentence  was  adjudged
and approved on 6 January 1955.






The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for being  AWOL  from
on or about 4 April 1955 to on or about 15 April 1955.  He was sentenced  to
confinement at hard labor for one month and a forfeiture of  $28.00  of  his
pay for one month.  The sentence was  adjudged  and  approved  on  25  April
1955.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for being  AWOL  from
on or about 11 July 1955 to on or about 16 July 1955.  He was  sentenced  to
confinement at hard labor for one month and a forfeiture of  $55.00  of  his
pay for one month.  The sentence was  adjudged  and  approved  on  5  August
1955.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for failure to go  to
his appointed place of duty on or about  8 and  9 September  1955.   He  was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for one month  and  a  forfeiture  of
$55.00 of his pay for one month.  The sentence was adjudged and approved  on
16 September 1955.

On 25 October 1955, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for unfitness.  The commander  advised
the applicant of his right to board action and if  he  desired  to  make  an
application for discharge in lieu of board action.  The  applicant  declined
to make an application for discharge in lieu of board action.

On 26 October 1955, the applicant’s commander recommended he be required  to
appear before a board of officers to determine his fitness for retention  in
the service.  The reason for the recommendation was the applicant  had  been
a habitual shirker in the performance of  his  duties.   He  had  repeatedly
been AWOL for which he had received numerous  Summary  Court-Martials.   The
applicant had inferred on several occasions that Guard House time  was  much
easier than performing an honest  day’s  work  loading  aircraft.   Constant
supervision was required  for  any  job  assigned  to  the  applicant.   The
applicant’s first AWOL was on 18 December 1954.   The  commander  noted  the
applicant remained absent through the  Christmas  and  New  Year’s  Holidays
knowing at that time his organization was operating on a skeleton  crew  and
applications for leave were being approved.  It was strongly  believed  that
the elimination of the applicant would be in the best interest  of  the  Air
Force.

The commander indicated in his recommendation that the  applicant  had  been
assigned to three different operating sections in their organization  in  an
effort to find a job which he would like and which  would  be  suitable  for
him.  The commander had counseled the applicant and had  informed  him  that
he operated on an open door policy, and was always available  to  assist  in
any trouble or emergency that might arise.  The applicant had failed to  use
this offer of assistance.




On 9 November 1955, the applicant was notified to appear before a  board  of
officers to hear evidence and to make recommendations as  to  his  retention
in the Air Force.  The applicant was advised of his right to  consult  legal
counsel, to appear before a board of officers, to submit statements  in  his
own behalf, to call witnesses, or waive his  rights  after  consulting  with
counsel.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  and  did
not desire to call any witnesses and requested counsel be appointed  by  the
convening authority.

On 15 November 1955, the board of  officers  convened  and  recommended  the
applicant be discharged from  the  Air  Force  for  unfitness  and  that  he
receive an undesirable discharge.

The convening authority approved the applicant’s undesirable discharge.

On 30 December 1955,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  an  undesirable
discharge in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR  39-17  -
Unfitness.  He served one year, four months, and eight days of total  active
duty service with 114 days of lost time.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an arrest record which is at 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 20 January 2006, 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 8 February 2006, the Board staff requested the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  F).   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 23 February 2006, the applicant was provided the opportunity  to  respond
to the FBI investigation within 14 days (Exhibit G).  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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting  the  applicant’s  undesirable
discharge be  upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge.   The  Board  believes
responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in  effecting   the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded  all  the
rights to which entitled at  the  time  of  discharge.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Although the applicant  did  not  specifically  request  consideration
based  on  clemency,  we  also  find  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a
recommendation the discharge be upgraded on that basis.   In  this  respect,
we note the applicant’s continued misconduct  following  his  discharge,  as
reflected on the FBI Report.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03716 in Executive Session on 23 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 November 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 12 January 2006.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 January 2006, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 February 2006, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 February 2006, w/atch.




                       MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                       Panel Chair