RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00913
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was under great duress when he signed for his discharge.  He  was  never
convicted of a crime and his Air Force attorney  stated  the  investigation
showed no signs of force.  It was read [sic] that the possible sentence was
death by hanging.  He was 21 years old in all-white South Dakota.   He  was
scared and signed the discharge papers.  Although he had a problematic tour
of duty as an airman, he tried to serve his country  with  honor.   He  was
relocated  to  an  area  of  the  country  offering  practically   nothing,
culturally speaking, for an African-American.  Because he was determined to
fulfill his obligation, he endured and tried to serve  honorably.   Several
times fellow African-American  airmen  suggested  he  see  a  psychiatrist.
Wanting to improve his performance, he  saw  the  base  psychiatrist.   The
psychiatrists stated nothing  was  wrong  and  he  needed  to  channel  his
energies in a positive direction.  He tried to do that and  enrolled  in  a
commercial artist course and became the squadron's artist.   He  has  never
been a rapist.  Athough he had problems adapting to military life he  tried
to serve out his commitment with honor. Outside  his  military  career  the
most he's been charged with are traffic tickets.

In support of his request the applicant  submits  a  personal  letter,  and
several character references.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from his military records reflect the applicant  enlisted  in
the Air Force on 26 August 1963.  On or about 5 August 1967 he  was  charged
with rape and court-martial charges were preferred.

On 6 September 1967, he requested discharge for the  good  of  the  service.
He acknowledged receipt stating he understood if the request  was  approved,
it could result in an undesirable discharge, in which he could  be  deprived
of veteran’s benefits and that he may  encounter  substantial  prejudice  in
civilian life.

On 12 September 1967, his commander recommended disapproval, adding that  if
his request were to be approved, an undesirable discharge was recommended.

In a legal review of case, the base legal office stated the case could  only
be  disposed  of  by  a  court-martial  and  should  not  be   disposed   of
administratively.  The legal office agreed with the  recommendation  of  the
squadron  commander  and  recommended  disapproval  of   his   request   for
discharge.

On 22 September 1967, the Numbered Air  Force  (15AF)  Judge  Advocate  (JA)
reviewed the request and found it legally sufficient to support a  discharge
for the good of the service.  JA stated his record  is  such  that  anything
less than an undesirable discharge would be inappropriate.   Accordingly  JA
recommended the request be granted and an undesirable discharge be issued.

The discharge authority  agreed  with  the  recommendation  of  15AF/JA  and
approved his request.  On 29 September 1967, he was discharged in the  grade
of airman basic (E-1) with service characterized as under  conditions  other
than honorable.

He served a total of four years, one month, and four days on active duty.

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

On 20 April 2008, a request for additional  information  pertaining  to  his
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for  response  within
30 days (Exhibit  D).   In  response  to  our  request,  applicant  provided
additional information, which is attached at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  We  find  no  impropriety  in  the   characterization   of   applicant's
discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards in effecting  the  separation,  and  we  do  not  find  persuasive
evidence that pertinent  regulations  were  violated  or  that  he  was  not
afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  He  has
not shown  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  was  contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing regulation, nor  has  it  been  shown  that  the
nature of  the  discharge  was  unduly  harsh  or  disproportionate  to  the
offenses  committed.   Considered   alone,   we   conclude   the   discharge
proceedings  were  proper  and  characterization  of   the   discharge   was
appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that  the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of  clemency.   We  have  considered  the
applicant's overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge and available evidence related to his post-service activities  and
accomplishments.  We do not believe  that  clemency  is  warranted  at  this
time.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of  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-2008-
00913 in Executive Session on 28 May 2008, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr.  James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Ms.  Karen A. Holloman, Member
            Mr.  Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
00913 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 March 2008, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Negative Reply, dated 17 April 2008.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 April 2008, w/atch.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 May 2008, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair