RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00456
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  Oregon Dept of Vet
                                     Affairs

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 AUGUST 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he joined the Air Force (AF) he was  young  and  immature.   He
joined the AF to become a man.  He believes he should have  received
an honorable discharge based on his entire record not one  incident.
He was justly punished for his transgression  of  sleeping  on  post
with the forfeiture of pay  and  hard  labor.   Receiving  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge was added  punishment  that
was unjust.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of  his  WD  AGO
Form 53-58, Service Record and a statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 May 1948, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as a private for a period of three years.

The applicant’s commander on 16 August 1950, requested the applicant
be ordered before a Board of Officers to determine if the  applicant
should be discharged from military service.  The commander based his
recommendation on the following:

      a.    The applicant was considered  inapt,  irresponsible  and
immature to the extent that he could not either voluntarily or
involuntarily realize the responsibilities to which he was subjected
to as a member of the National Military Establishment.

      b.    The applicant’s character was poor  and  efficiency  was
unsatisfactory.

      c.    On 25 July 1950, the  applicant  was  tried  by  Summary
Court Martial for  sleeping  at  his  post.   He  was  sentenced  to
forfeiture of $50.00 and confined at hard labor for 30 days.

On 23 August 1950, the applicant was notified  to  appear  before  a
Board of Officers to consider whether or not he should  be  retained
in the service or discharged.

On 23  August  1950,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification to appear before a Board of Officers and  indicated  he
did not desire  to  call  any  witness  in  his  own  behalf  or  be
represented by legal counsel.

The board of officers recommended that applicant be discharged  with
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 1 September 1950, the applicant was separated from the Air  Force
under the provisions of AR 615-369 (unsuitability),  with  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served a  total  of  2
years, 3 months and 18 days of active service.

On 11 July 1951, the applicant appealed to the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) to have his under honorable conditions (general)
discharge upgraded to  honorable.   On  25 October  1951,  the  AFDRB
reviewed and considered all the facts of record and after a  thorough
deliberation concluded that a change in the characterization  of  the
applicant’s discharge was not warranted.

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 the applicant’s requested  relief  be  denied.
DPPRS states the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the  processing
of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in  the  applicant’s
file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulations  of  that
time.  Also, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did  not
provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
16 March 2007, for  review  and  response.   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  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-2007-00456 in  Executive  Session  on  14  June  2007  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                       Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Mar 07.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair