AIR FORCE
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORD8
DOCKET NUMBER: 96- D&F,Q
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
,
I 1
JIPPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In view of his honorable service from 20 October 1954 to
26 December 1956, and his immaturity at age 20, his discharge
should be upgraded.
The applicant states that he..was a young man who had a run-in
with his supervisors. He was belittled and picked-on constantly
for the most mundane reason. He is not the same person he was
then.
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 October 1954, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air
Force at the age of 17 for a period of 4 years.
On 26 December 1956, the applicant was honorably discharged and
on 27 December 1956, reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of 6 years.
The applicant was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 28 June 1957
through 18 December 1957.
The applicant was returned to military control on 19 December
1957 and placed in confinement.
On 30 January 1958, the applicant was arraigned and tried before
a Special Court-Martial for violation of Article 86 of the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Specifically, for
being AWOL from 28 June 1957 until 19 December 1957.
The
applicant pled guilty and was sentenced to a bad conduct
discharge, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture
of $65 per months for 6 months.
His service was
The applicant was discharged on 26 May 1 9 5 8 .
characterized as other than honorable conditions. He completed 2
years, 8 months, and 5 days of active service.
On 20 January 1 9 9 8 , the applicant was advised to submit
documentation pertaining to his post-service activities (Exhibit
c )
On 8 February 1998, the Umatilla County Veterans Service Office
provided miscellaneous letters and credit references on behalf of
the applicant (Exhibit D) .
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) , Washington, D.C. , provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit E.
-_ .
THE BOARD CO NCLUDES 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 applicant was not afforded all the rights to which
entitled at the time of discharge. Considered alone, we conclude
the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
4. Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the
events which precipitated the discharge. We have a Congressional
mandate which permits consideration of other factors; e.g.,
applicant's background, the overall quality of service, and post-
service activities and accomplishments. Further, we may base our
decision on matters of equity and clemency rather than simply on
whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were
followed. This is a much broader consideration than officials
involved in the discharge were permitted, and our decision in no
way discredits the validity of theirs.
5. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of
all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, we are
persuaded that applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which
led to the contested discharge and has been a productive member
of society. We recognize the adverse impact of the discharge
2
applicant received; and, while it may have been appropriate at
the time, we believe it would be an injustice for applicant to
continue to suffer its effects.
Accordingly, we find that
corrective action is appropriate as a matter of equity and on the
basis of clemency.
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 26 May 1958,
he was discharged with service characterized as general (under
honorable conditions).
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 21 November 1997, 24 February 1998, and
16 March 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff , Member
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C. Letter,
Exhibit D. Letter,
Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.
p 8 .
dated 8 Feb 98,
MhRTHA Y U d
Panel Chair
3
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
DEC 0 4 1998
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 96-01394
.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
records of the Department of the Air Force relating
corrected to show that on 26 May 1958, he was dis
a1 (under honorable conditions).
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
c/
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01239
He received one Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 5 March 1957, in which the overall evaluation was “Very Good.” On 3 September 1957, applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-14, Convenience of the Government, with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 24...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03725
On 3 June 1958, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for a general discharge under the Department of the Air Force Letter, Subject: Discharge of Unproductive Airmen, dated 1 December 1955, and Air Force Regulation 39-16, for his apathetic and defective attitudes toward service life and his job, and his inability to expend the necessary effort to make himself a productive airman. The applicant was discharged effective 4 June 1958 with a general (under honorable...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02031 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The Board also invited the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. In a letter, dated 15 April 2002, the applicant states that he has no excuse for the way he acted...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02318
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02318 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, or in the alternative, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03881
Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the Board is persuaded that he has been a productive member of society since leaving the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 July 1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01300 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. ...
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of a FBI Identification Record, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended that the Board, as a matter of clemency, grant the applicant relief by upgrading his dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02240
On 23 Jun 58, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Therefore, the Board Majority recommends the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00420 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01077 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the member’s case, we are persuaded that applicant has been a productive member of...