RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04971
		        COUNSEL:  DISABLED AMERICAN 
                        VETERANS (DAV)
		        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  Any necessary Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
examinations be completed as soon as possible.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was young and naïve.  He is 80 years old and has had time to 
look upon his faults and is truly sorrowful for his actions.  He 
would like his discharge upgraded before his death.

His family is not aware of the true character of his discharge.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from 
the Armed Forces of the United States, and a letter from his 
Disabled American Veteran National Service Officer.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Jan 53, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 26 Jan 56, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for unfitness under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Enlisted 
Personnel Discharge Unfitness.  The reasons for the proposed 
action were:  1) He was not amenable to discipline; 2) He had 
committed repeated offenses; and 3) He had been recommended for 
discharge by a board of medical officers not because of physical 
or mental disability but because he possessed an anti-social 
personality defect.  The applicant also had the following court-
martial convictions and punishments under Article 15: 1) On 
11 Feb 55, he received a summary court-martial for failure to 
go, the punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $30.00 pay and 
restriction to his duty station; 2) On 25 Feb 55, he received a 
summary court-martial for breaking restriction, the punishment 
imposed was a forfeiture of $60.00 pay and confinement to hard 
labor for one month; 3) On 25 Jun 54, he received an Article 
15 for failure to repair, and was reduced to the grade of airman 
basic; 4) On 8 Sep 54, he received an Article 15 for being 
absent without leave (AWOL), he received 14 days extra duty; 5) 
On 19 Jun 55, he received an Article 15 for being drunk and 
disorderly in a public place, he received seven days 
restriction; 6) On 4 Jul 55, he received an Article 15 for being 
drunk in a public place, and was reduced in grade to airman 
basic.

On 26 Jan 56, the applicant acknowledged the action his 
commander was taking against him, and after consulting with 
counsel, waived his rights to appear before a board of officers 
and requested discharge without the benefit of board 
proceedings.  He stated he understood that if his discharge was 
approved, his separation from the Air Force might be under 
conditions other than honorable and that he could receive an 
undesirable discharge.

On 12 Mar 56, the applicant was notified that he was to appear 
before a board of officers to determine whether or not he should 
be retained in the service, he indicated that he would be 
represented by counsel, and requested witnesses be present at 
the meeting of the board.

The board found that: 1) He had no mental or physical defects 
which would warrant a medical separation; 2) He was constantly 
involved in minor infractions of regulations and breaches of the 
peace which reflect discredit upon himself and the Air Force; 3) 
He had profited neither from experience, judicial and non-
judicial punishment for his acts of misconduct; 4) 
Notwithstanding repeated attempts at rehabilitation by 
appropriate counseling agencies, he continued in his pattern of 
wayward conduct to such an extent that it could not be 
reasonably expected that he could become an effective airman, 
and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with an 
undesirable discharge.

The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support separation.

On 17 May 56, the discharge authority approved the undesirable 
discharge, and on 28 May 56, the applicant was discharged under 
the provisions of AFR 39-17, with service characterized as 
undesirable.  He served a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 21 
days on active duty.  

On 26 Jun 13, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days (Exhibit C).  In response to the request, the 
applicant states that he is almost 81 years old and his friends 
and relatives are not aware of his undesirable discharge.  He 
also states that 60 years is a long time to keep a secret, and 
he would like this burden off his back.  He had a drinking 
problem, but he never had any problems on base.  He only got 
into trouble when he went into town and got drunk.  He provides 
copies of his social security earnings and benefits statements, 
retirement paperwork, a property tax bill, and a Department of 
Veterans Affairs Annual Insurance Policy Statement.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

At the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 
8, stated that when discharged because of unfitness, an 
Undesirable Discharge (UD) will be furnished.  However, in 1959, 
AFR        39-17 was changed to state that an airman discharged 
under this regulation should be furnished an undesirable 
discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given case 
warrants a general or honorable discharge. Criteria for the 
issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge is 
outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen (See Exhibit E).  

Attached at Exhibit F is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force 
Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of 
characterization of service and how standards have changed since 
1959.  On 12 Sep 13, a copy of Legal Advisor’s opinion was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 
days.  To date, a response has not been received by this office 
(Exhibit G).

________________________________________________________________


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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation, i.e., AFR 39-17, and within the commander's 
discretionary authority.  At the time of the applicant’s 
discharge, AFR 39-17 stated that an undesirable discharge would 
be furnished; however, it was changed in 1959 to authorize 
general or honorable discharge characterizations depending on 
the particular circumstances in a given case.  The applicant has 
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of his service was contrary to the provisions 
of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, disproportionate to 
the offenses committed, or the particular circumstances in his 
case, to warrant an upgrade in the characterization of his 
service.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading 
the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, without 
documentation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
indicating whether or not the applicant has an arrest record, we 
find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief 
sought.  Additionally, the applicant requests that any necessary 
DVA examinations be completed as soon as possible; however, this 
request does not fall within the purview of the Board.  
Therefore, no action will be taken regarding this portion of his 
request.

________________________________________________________________


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 Docket Number    
BC-2012-04971 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 15 and 16 Oct 13, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jun 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Excerpts, AFR 39-17 and AFR 39-10.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFRBA Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Sep 13.




								
					Panel Chair