Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9603330
Original file (9603330.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITAR 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

F@3YS7999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 6 - 0 3 3 3 0  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
After having been out drinking one night, he went to his room and 
lay down on his bunk.  It was during this time, that he realized 
that an officer  (lieutenant) was performing oral sex on him.  He 
then  put  him  out  of  his  room.  Later  the  Office  of  Special 
Investigations  (OSI) interviewed him  and  the officer, at  which 
time the officer admitted that he had sex with him.  As a result, 
he was court-martialed and discharged from the service. 

Since that time, he has led a very straightforward life, and he 
is  well-respected  by  his  peers  in  the  community  in  which  he 
lives. 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  copies of  his 
DD Form  214  and  discharge  certificate, and  several  supportive 
statements. 
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant's  military  personnel  records  were  not  available. 
Therefore, the facts surrounding the applicant's separation from 
the Air Force cannot be verified. 

Documentation  provided  by  the  applicant  reflects  that,  on 
20 Mar 56, he was discharged under  the provisions  of  AFR  3 5 - 6 6  
with an undesirable discharge. 

Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI) ,  Washington, D.C., provided an investigative 
report which is attached at Exhibit B. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch, AFPC/DPPRP ,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that,  in  the  absence  of  available 
records, they could not make a recommendation on this application 
(Exhibit C) . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
17 Feb 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

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.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable injustice.  No evidence has 
been  presented  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the 
applicant's discharge was  improper or contrary to the directive 
under  which  it  was  effected.  Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the 
passage  of  time  and  the post-service documentation provided  by 
the applicant, we believe the continued stigma of an undesirable 
discharge  is  unduly  harsh  and  no  longer  serves  any  useful 
purpose.  Therefore, we  are  of  the opinion that  upgrading  the 
applicant's discharge  to  general, based  on  clemency, would  be 
appropriate.  Accordingly,  we  recommend  that  the  applicant's 
undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 20 Mar 56, he 

2 

AFBCMR 96-03330 

* 

was  discharged  with  service  characterized  as  general  (under 
honorable conditions). 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 3 Nov  98,  under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603 : 

Ms. Rita S .   Looney, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  FBI Report. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 3 Feb 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Feb 97. n 

Panel Chair 

tY 

3 

AFBCMR 96-03330 

. 

c 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 96-03330 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FEB 1 2  M g  

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: 

ent of the Air Force relating 

corrected to show that on 20 
under honorable conditions). 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01144A

    Original file (BC-1998-01144A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-01144 INDEX CODE 106.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his 1998 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 8 Jul 96, the US Air Force Court of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1996-00309

    Original file (BC-1996-00309.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Calculating the AFIT commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment before the ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI. DPPRP indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days should not be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty time should not be counted in calculating the discharge of the ADSC and leave and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion of AFIT (see Exhibit C). He...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9600309

    Original file (9600309.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Calculating the AFIT commitment based on 15 months placed his last day of commitment before the ending date of the VSI program, thus qualifying him for the VSI. DPPRP indicated that if the applicant believes that non-academic days should not be factored into the ADSC computation, then they suggest that non-duty time should not be counted in calculating the discharge of the ADSC and leave and weekends should be deducted from the service credit since completion of AFIT (see Exhibit C). He...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702317

    Original file (9702317.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFBCMR 97-023 17 - His ratings were "4" and "2" The applicant had two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in his (Referral report), records. The applicant has provided no evidence of error or injustice in his records and the Board should deny his application. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated, in part, that the documentation he submitted to request the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01689

    Original file (BC-2011-01689.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01689 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 14 Nov 96, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for drug...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771

    Original file (BC-2007-00771.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, based on his overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Air Force Regulation 39-17A.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01303

    Original file (BC-2010-01303.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01303 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). On 19 Sep 60, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB considered and denied the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100166

    Original file (0100166.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He had also been given three Article 15s: one for failure to repair and two for violation of IDF Memo 10 - 2, Curfew and Pass Violation. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723

    Original file (BC-2005-00723.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900471

    Original file (9900471.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.