RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00398
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 AUGUST 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After a fight with a fellow airman he was confined to  the  stockade.
He was released from the stockade and brought before a Summary Court-
Martial Board and  discharged  with  an  under  honorable  conditions
(general) discharge.

His commander recommended that he could upgrade his general discharge
to honorable.

In support of his appeal,  applicant  submitted  character  reference
statements and his DD Form 214.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  3 August
1956 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 27 June 1957, the applicant  was  convicted  by  Summary  Court-
Martial for violation of Article  128  (assault  with  a  dangerous
weapon) and subsequently confined for 20 days, forfeiture of $25.00
and reduction to AB.

On 5 February 1958, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  he  was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) under the
provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16 as an  untrainable  and
unproductive airman.

The evaluation officer interviewed the  applicant  and  explained  the
following:

      a.    The action which was recommended against him.

      b.    Advised the applicant on his right to submit statements in
his own behalf.

      c.    Advised the applicant that  he  (the  evaluation  officer)
would assist him in preparing a statement  in  his  behalf  if  he  so
desired.

On 7 March 1958, the evaluation officer recommended the  applicant  be
discharged for unsuitability for military duty and lack  of  value  to
the AF with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   The
evaluation officer further indicated the applicant’s service  had  not
been  such  as  to  warrant  discharge  under  other  than   honorable
conditions.  The applicant is a person of below average  intelligence,
evidenced by  his  inability  to  absorb  the  necessary  training  to
effectively execute his assigned duties.  A further indication of  his
inability to learn was the unusually low score he  made  on  his  AFJK
test.  Efforts to train the applicant proved to be  futile.   However,
his inability to learn or to absorb skills is not based entirely  upon
low intelligence, but to indifference and a defective  attitude.   The
applicant’s attitude and performance of duty  and  general  appearance
were noticeably substandard.  Also, he is a trouble maker  and  a  bad
influence upon newly assigned airmen within  the  organization,  which
frequently resulted in strained relations with his fellow airmen.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that  the
applicant since being assigned to his command proved  himself  to  be
untrainable.  Every job that the applicant had been assigned required
that he be given the utmost supervision  or  the  job  would  not  be
accomplished; his attitude toward the AF and job knowledge  has  been
100 percent negative.  The applicant seemed to be a  constant  source
of trouble both on his job and in relations with  the  other  airmen.
The applicant has refused to  study  his  On-the-Job  Training  (OJT)
manuals and as a result he has not advanced himself in any degree  to
be of value to military service.

On 5  February  1958,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and indicated he understood the content  of
the letter.

On 7 March 1958, the discharge authority approved the separation  and
directed  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 16 April 1958 under the
provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability, with  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He  was  credited  with  1
year, 7 months and 26 days of active duty service.

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 all of  the
accusations are false.  He did study the manuals to try and better his
degrees to operate all the equipment that he was supposed to.  He  was
never given a chance; there were always accusations that were  brought
up such as not  getting  along  with  other  personnel,  no  time  and
untrainable.

The airman  he  fought  actually  had  the  weapon.   When  they  were
fighting, he managed to pry the weapon away from the airman, which  is
the reason the Air Police found the weapon on him.

He stayed from personnel that tried to  belittle  him.   He  was  well
liked by personnel other than the people mentioned above.  He did  not
have any vices such as drinking or smoking and was well liked  by  the
female personnel at the base.  This is the  main  reason  this  person
hated him and tried to make trouble  for  him.   He  was  involved  in
sports and other activities.

Again, he is requesting the Board reconsider his request to  have  his
discharge upgraded.  He has worked hard through out his life to  serve
his family, church, and community to the best of his ability.   It  is
truly important to him to clear this matter up as he  feels  that  the
incident leading to his discharge was not handled justly.  He was  not
given the opportunity to defend his actions (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.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's   records,   it   appears   the   processing    and    the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy.  We have considered the  applicant’s
overall quality of service; however, in view of his  misconduct  while
he was on active duty we do not believe that a  discharge  upgrade  is
warranted.  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-
2007-00398 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 07.




                                        MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                        Panel Chair