RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00545
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 AUGUST 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He became very nervous being associated with the Atomic  Bomb  under
Public Law 102-578.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his  DD  Form
214, National  Archives  (NA)  Form  13059,  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (VA) Form 21-22 and VA Form 21-526.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 July 1950, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) as a private (Pvt) for period of four years.

On 20 September 1952, the applicant was notified of his  commander’s
intent to recommend him for discharge under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16 for unsuitability.  The commander based
his recommendation on the following:

      a.    The applicant had increasing difficulty in adjusting  to
the emotional strain of military life.

      b.    The applicant upon his return from Korea was nervous and
unsteady.  This was manifested by  actions  from  hand  wringing  to
uncontrolled emotional energy.

      c.    The applicant was a serious problem to himself  and  the
Air Force.

      d.    Based on increased  disciplinary  difficulties  and  the
decrease in utilization of his capabilities, it was the  opinion  of
the commander that it would be in the best interest of the Air Force
if the applicant was discharged from the service.

The applicant was notified to appear before a board of  officers  to
determine if he should be discharged prior to the expiration of  his
present term of service because of unfitness.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and indicated
he did not desire legal counsel or to submit statements in  his  own
behalf.

On 20 June 1952, the applicant appeared before a Board  of  Officers
to determine if he  should  be  discharged  from  military  service.
After due  consideration  of  all  evidence  submitted,  orally  and
documentary, the  Board  found  the  applicant  was  unsuitable  for
further military service because  of  his  disruptive  reactions  to
acute  or  special  stress,  such  as   situational   maladjustments
characterized by behavior disorders  and  defective  attitude.   The
Board of  Officers  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  for
unsuitability  with  an   under   honorable   conditions   (general)
discharge.

On 4 September 1952, a Psychiatric Examination was completed on  the
applicant and the physician was of the opinion  that  there  was  no
evidence that  the  applicant  was  suffering  from  any  mental  or
physical condition that would justify separation  from  active  duty
for medical reasons.  The applicant was increasingly  irritable  and
short tempered.  His  quick  temper  had  shown  itself  in  violent
attacks upon other persons.

The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 16 October 1952 with an under  honorable
conditions  (general)  discharge,  in  accordance  with  AFR  39-16,
Enlisted Personnel (Discharge for Inaptitude or Unsuitability).   He
served a total of two years, three months and seven days  of  active
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 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.  Based on the  information  and
evidence provided they recommend the request be denied.

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
7 April 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-2007-00545 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 16 Feb 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 07.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair