RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03572
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 MAY 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He got into some bad company and did some  foolish  things.   He  was
arrested, charged with burglary and entered a plea agreement  with  a
deferred sentence with three years probation.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his  DD  Form
214, a statement and a  State  of  Montana  Board  of  Pardons  Final
Discharge document.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  12 September
1962 in the grade of airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 4 December 1964, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for  a  civil  court
conviction.  The commander further recommended the  applicant  receive
an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.  The
specific reason for the discharge action was:

      On 21 November 1964, the applicant was  tried  in  the  District
Court of the State of  Montana  for  burglary  in  the  first  degree.
Applicant pled guilty  to  burglary  in  the  first  degree.   He  was
sentenced to imprisonment for three  years  suspended  and  placed  on
probation with the State Board of Pardons.

The commander advised  applicant  that  military  counsel  had  been
obtained to assist him; present his case to  a  board  of  officers;
submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in  lieu  of,
the board hearing; or waive the above rights after  consulting  with
counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that  the
applicant was tried and convicted by Special Court-Martial on 19  May
1964 for:

      a.    On 1 September 1963, the applicant  stole  one  type  N3B
parka valued at less than $20.00.

      b.    On 1 October 1963, the applicant stole a steel  tool  box
from the Air Force valued at no less than $20.00  but  no  more  than
$50.00.

      c.    On 1 November 1963, the applicant stole 24 quarts of oil,
valued at less than $20.00 and a steel tool box  valued  at  no  less
than $20.00 but no more than $50.00.

      d.    On or about 27 February 1964, the applicant stole a  tool
bag valued at no less than $20.00.

His punishment consisted of three months of hard labor and forfeiture
of $55.00 a month for three months and a reduction  in  rank  to  the
grade of AB.

On 8  December  1964,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and after  consulting  with  legal  counsel
waived his right  to  a  hearing  before  a  board  of  officers  and
submitted statements in his own behalf.

The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  leally
sufficient.

On 23 December 1964, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge
and directed the applicant be discharged with  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 4  January  1965  under
the provisions of Air Force  Regulation  (AFR)  39-22,  Discharge  of
Airmen for Misconduct Because of Civil Court   Disposition,  with  an
under other than honorable conditions  (undesirable)  discharge.   He
served on active duty for 1 year, 11 months and 10 days.   He  had  3
months and 29 days of lost time.

The applicant appealed  to  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) on 29 April 1969 to  have  his  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (undesirable) discharge upgraded to honorable.  The  AFDRB
reviewed and  considered  all  of  the  facts  of  record  and  after
deliberation concluded that a change in the type  or  nature  of  the
applicant’s discharge was not warranted.  The Secretary  of  the  Air
Force (SAF) directed that the applicant’s request be denied.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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 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.  He provided  no
facts warranting a change in his character of service.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he  recalls
being called in the First Sergeant’s office and was told he  would  be
receiving a undesirable discharge.  He  further  states  he  does  not
recall seeing the commander or legal counsel (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 an error or an 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
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust.  The applicant has not submitted evidence to show
the processing of his discharge was in error or unjust.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03572  in  Executive  Session  on  21  February  2007  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, 19 Dec 06.




                                        MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                        Panel Chair