AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00691
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
2 4 JUL 1998
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be
upgraded to honorable or general.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His overall military service was not fully considered.
The nature of his separation was too harsh for the offense
committed.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer
or Discharge. (Exhibit A).
Pursuant to the Board's request, the applicant provided
additional documentation, which is attached at Exhibit C.
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.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available documentation indicates that the applicant enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 11 May 55.
A Report of Medical Examination, dated 27 Sep 56, reflects
that the applicant was a passi
* cipant in a homosexual
However , the
episode on one occasion at
applicant denied that he had homosexual tendencies.
On 3 Nov 56, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of AFR 35-66 (Homosexual Tendencies - Class 11) and furnished
a UOTHC discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and
AFB .
* ,
23 days of active service for his current enlistment and
4 years, 5 months, and 23 days of total active military
service.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
1.
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. After careful
consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence
of record, we find no evidence that the applicant's discharge was
improper or contrary to the prevailing regulation. However ,
after considering the facts and circumstances leading to the
applicant's separation and in view of the fact that, under
current standards, the applicant would most likely have been
discharged with service characterized, at the least, under
honorable conditions, we believe that clemency is warranted in
this case. We therefore recommend that his records be corrected
to show he was received a general (under honorable conditions)
service characterization.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 3 Nov 56, he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under
honorable conditions).
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 9 Jun 9 8 , under the provisions of AFI 3 6 -
2603 :
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 1 4 9 , dated 24 Feb 97, w/atch.
2
AFBCMR 97-00691
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Letter, applicant, dated 20 May 98,w/atchs.
( B U L U f C . VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
3
AFBCMR 97-00691
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 97-0069 1
2 4 JUL 1998
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:
epartment of the Air Force relating
orrected to show that, on 3 Nov 56,
eneral (under honorable conditions).
I/ Director
Air Force Review
On 5 Sep 9 7 , the applicant provided documentation relating to her post-service activities and requested the Board reconsider her application (see Exhibit F). After reviewing the statements and accomplishments pertaining to her post-service conduct, and noting that she was issued an honorable discharge, we believe her RE code should be changed to \\RE 3A" in order that she may apply for enlistment in the Air Force Reserves. The following documentary evidence was considered: AFBCMR...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, the State of Department of Veterans Affairs, provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the applicant’s request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 25 June 1997, the State of of Veterans Affairs, requested reconsideration request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). ' Examiner's...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03845
Counsel further asserts that because the instruction cited in the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 was not in effect at the time of the applicant’s alleged misconduct and there was no paragraph 5 as referred to, the reprimand was in error and constituted an erroneous basis for the discharge action subsequently initiated against the applicant. Counsel also asserts that the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 admonishes the applicant for misconduct that the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Retirement Ops Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRSO, reviewed this application and states that currently, they have no provisions in their procedures or in the law to allow retirement in the grade of chief warrant officer To and they have no authority to circumvent current laws. At that time, the AFBCMR can direct that the pertinent miiitary records of the Department of the Air Force be corrected to show the applicant was retired in the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and indicated that it appears that the applicant is trying to convince the Board that since he did not receive his copy of the PRF until one week before the CY95B board convened, he was not afforded the opportunity to write a personal letter to the CY95B board president. While the applicant believes he did not receive his PRF within...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02263
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The package clearly identified the 90-day suspense and there is no evidence applicant made an election at that time. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1996-00383A
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His requested class date was based on his DEROS (date eligible for return from overseas) of April 1993, and using that date he would not have had the required 21 months retainability after completion of his technical school. The retraining was approved in April 1992 and he received the earliest possible training quota for AFSC 1C1X1. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His requested class date was based on his DEROS (date eligible for return from overseas) of April 1993, and using that date he would not have had the required 21 months retainability after completion of his technical school. The retraining was approved in April 1992 and he received the earliest possible training quota for AFSC 1C1X1. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
Reasons for the commander’s recommendation was that the applicant made a signed statement to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) indicating his homosexual involvement with another male member. On 14 August 1959, he was discharged in the grade of airman second class, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness - Homosexual), receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...