I N THE MATTER O F : - DOCKET NUMBER :
A I R FORCE BOARD F @ 3 Z:i?;REZTION
RECOF??S 2? P F 9 C E E D I N G S
ZDJNSEL: NONE
OF MILITAR'f RZ",RCS
9 7 - 0 2 9 Q 9
HEARING DESIRED: N O
APFLIlZANT REQUESTS THAT:
3is under other than honorable csnditions (UOTHC) d i s c h a ~ ~ e ~e
d p q r a d e c to general.
A X L I C A N T CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant be;i?ves :he records to be in e r r s ~ 3r
unjust and the evidence submitti5 ;:I
support of the appeal zizz 31
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT O F FACTS:
2n 6 March 1958, the applicant T~czs discharged from the Air Fsrce
with an under other than hcncrzkk conditions discharge ur-der t n e
provisions of AFR 35-66 (Hc~.csexuality - Class 11).
:h! 2 s
serving ir, the grade of a i r m ~ z second class (2-3' 3r-s * , E S
credited with 1 y e z r , 11 ~t-ficnz7s and 7 days c.f
s e r v i c e .
a c t i - - e 11:
F ?
The relevant facts pertaining :c
s application and s u r r c i J n d i n q
-,ne applicant's separation from r A e Air Force are contairea ~ r i
his military recorcis which 2 5 3
B.
Accoraingly, there is n o neec tT; recite these facts i y 1 z n - s
-.
F ~ Z G ~ Q ~f Proceedings.
attacned ar_ Exh;-,r?i-
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
T h e applicant has exhausted ail remedies provided ~y e x i s t i ~ g
- L .
law or regulations.
2. The application was not t i m e i y filed; hawever, it is in t h e
interest. of justice to excuse t h e failure to timely file.
relevan-,
-
_z;ence has been
c. T -
- ,
presented
c r cartrary to the ?revailing regulation.
to
3. Sufficient
ciemonstzaxe Ehe existence of Frobable injustice. After careful
of applicant’s zsquest and the available evidence
csrsid3ra:icn
sf z z c a r d , -;;z find no evidence :hat the applicant’s d i s c k z r g e :hias
A7c7,” 2°F L ,
afz3.f ~s-~siaering the facts zxd circumstances l e a d i r i g zz z r ~ e
a p ~ l i z z r - : ’ s separation and
-:-Fw of the fact t k L a t , ~::z;e:
c u r r e r , t standards, the applica:?: ,ziould most likeiy ha7Je bz.er,
disc‘rAariqed ~i:h
Lsnarabie cocditions , we belieT:e That clemency is warrantcec ~ r ,
tr,;s case. We therefore recormerr that his records De ccrrectec
to shaw he was received a qens.Lrz1 (under honorable condi’ions
s e rv I ze crla r a c: e r i z at i cc .
service charazEerized, at the least , ~ n ~ e z
THE 3OAS.D RECOMMENDS T3AT :
Tne perIinent military records sf the Department of the Air F o r c e
relztinq to APPLICANT, be ccrrectec to show that on 6 Mar 5’8, k-3
was discharqed with service characterized as general I znder
nonorable conditions).
Tne following members of the Esarzi zonsidered tnis applicstix -I--
-
E x e c u ~ i ~ v e Session on 17 Feb 36, ,rider the provisions of AFT
; C -
i Y ) t 3:
r n
Plr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph G . iliamond, Member
Ms. Sophie A. \:;ark, Mernber
F i l l members v o t e d to correct the records, as recommended.
fo1low;r.g documentary evidence was zonsidered:
Exl-.ibit A. DD Form 149, d a z e c unaated.
Exl-,ibit B. Applicant’s Mastei- Personnel Records.
AFBCMR 97-0%96,9
discovered the absence of an AF E'orrr 63 in his records upon receipt of that RIP; however, that ;s irzelevant to The issue that h e i n c u r e d the A D S C . However, we do not find his uncorroborated contentions, in and by themselves, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly incurred an ADSC for training he would not have accepted had he been aware of the ADSC prior to entering the training. Exhibit B.
Applicant? The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant I s request and provided advisory oplnions to the Board recommending the application be deniec (Exhibit C). The advisory opir2ions were forwarded to the applicart for review and response (Exhibit D1.
A I R FORCE BOARD FOX ZCRRECTION OF :v A C L ~ V E S t a t u s List from t h e K e t i r e d Reser-T,-e ana a s s i g n e d t o ar, a p p r o p r i a t e Cztegory A o r B ~ G X ~ M L A p p h c a n t ’ s submission IS at E x h i b i t A. The appropriste Air Force of?::? ?vallJstec a p p l x a r L t ’ 5 1 - q u e s t ana p r o v i d e d an a d v i s o r y o p i ~ x x zo the EDard -ecommending t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be d e n i e d (ExhibiL : .
1 s i ., I Office of the Assistant Secretary \1 BC'JlR 98-00007 AIR FORCE BOLL-RD FOP- C O k A ? wclu:d bz a u t h o r i z e d to r e t u r n t o Germany 111 a rwpoi-a:-y d u t y (TDY) s t ; i t u s t o complete z s h i p his EX-*' and HHGs to h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r y He was a d v i s e d t h a t k I?-auld n o t be s t a t i o n k F Z i . 3 J and H H G s LC h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r l r a c t i o n s A F B ) aiic -,&:as a d v i s e d t h a t h e would n o t be s t a t l...
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) . T r. 0 additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d comment (Exhibit G ’ i . Applicant’s response to the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H. The appropriate After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01368
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00034
4 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-01-00034 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Records review revealed that the applicant received an Article 15 for wronghlly using marijuana on or about April 30, 1985 and a second Article 15 for failure to obey a lawhl order while in correctional custody. Today I have prescribe medication Also, there is a letter from my therapist Dr. ------ Please - ATCH 1.
After his return tc the United States, he inquired about a request for the 30LC ana was promptly informed t h a t the Replacement Depot had no authority to initiate such a request and since he was being processed f o r release from active duty, there was no way such a request could be considered. It is no longer possible to ascertain whether or not the applicant was eligible for an additional decoratiorA for aerial achievements. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 06956-98
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY . Y o u a r e a d v i s e d t h a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c a s e w i l l b e g r a n t e d o n l y u p o n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f n e w a n d m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e n o t p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e B o a r d a n d t h e n , o n l y u p o n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d a n d a p p r o v a l b y t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY RECORDS 18 1. ...
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...