f
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
JUN 2 3 1998
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03179
COUNSEL: MR. SCHLUZ I1
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to
honorable. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. 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.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
-
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Mr. Frederick R.
Beaman 111, and Mr. Joseph G. Diamond considered this application
on 16 June 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
w w
W. MULGREW
DAVID
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. Applicant's Response
F. FBI Report
7
DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR TORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
.
I
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE 6ASE TEXAS
NOV I 4 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 1 50-471 3
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman private, was discharged from the Air Force
27 Jun 5 I under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) and received an undesirable discharge.
He scrvcci 0 I year. 10 montlis and 05 days total active service.
RccIuestccl Action. Thc applicant is requcs~ing that his undcsirahlc discharge be upgraded to
honornbic.
Basis for Request. Applicant states he was not mcntally sound at the time of his discharge and
his due process right was violated because of that. He indicates in his application that he would
like his discharge to be iipgrtldcd to at least unadaptable or unsuitable because his defense
counsel told him thal it' he did not fight the discliargc board that he would receive a general
discharge and would bc cligible for thc draft into the Armj* in G months. He further states that he
I'ound out later that hc had a inciital disorder arid that thc psychiatrist roport was in Jan 50 and he
went bcforc thc discharge board in May 50 and that AFR 39-1 7 states he should have gone
bcbre the psychialrist \vithin -30 days bttforc going hcliirc a discharge board. AFDRB reviewed
his cast on I7 Mar ti0 ancf again on 0 Alar 82 and AFDRBs denied his request for upgrade of his
Jischargc wc concur ivith thc iindings of tliosc boards.
I-acts. On I7 Mny 5 1. applicant's comiiimdor rccomniendcd that the applicant be required to
appear before a Board of Officers convened to review evidence of habits or traits of character
manifested by misconduct by the applicant. He had been court-martial three times during his
current enlistment. The first court-martial was for disobeying a NCO and using thrcatFning
language, the second court-martial was for disobeying a NCO and failure to repair and the third
court-martial wa.. for failure to obey the lawful orders of an officer. Applicant had a total of 49
days lost timc due to two conhement periods. Applicant appcared befure the board with
counsel.
been prcviously court-martial three times, the applicant had received company punishment for
failure to repair, statement from the Base Psychiatrist that applicant had a paranoid personality,
all attempts for rehabilitation had proven to fail and finally, retention in the Air Force was not to
be in the best interest of the Air Force. The discharge board recommended the applicant be given
an undesirable discharge. On 15 Jun 5 1, the discharge authority directed that applicant be
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 17 and that he be issued an undesirable discharge
certificate.
l'hc discliargo board's findings and recommendations were: that thc applicant had
.. .
Discussion. This case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. AFR
39-1 7.25 Jan 5 1 does not require that a mental report be submitted within 30 days of a member
appearing before a discharge board. The records indicate member’s military service was
reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
Kcconmendation. Applicant did not suhiriit an)’ ncw evidence or identify any errors in the
discharge proccssing nor provide facts which \vanant an upgrade of the discharge he received.
Accordingly. we r e c o n i n i d applicant’s request bc denied. He has not liled a timely request.
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
. Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Managemcnt
On 18 Jan 51, while serving in the grade of private first class, the applicant received an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (conviction by civil authority). DPPRS indicated that the Air Force does not provide legal counsel in civil matters. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01298
He was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of active service (excludes 35 days lost time due to periods of AWOL and confinement). Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 02, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01700
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 November 1946, prior to the applicant’s enlistment he was convicted by the State of Michigan for unarmed robbery. The applicant enlisted 23 July 1947 at Dearborn, Michigan and, so far as the records, which were available, showed, without having disclosed his past record. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00327
When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge. The AFDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should be upgraded based on the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the RE code “2B”. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action, The applicant is requesting a change in his separation and reentry codes which would allow him to reenlist in the Air Force reserves. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate counseling was provided and appropriate action was taken.
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00429
Additionally, the DRB believed that had the applicant received timely financial counseling, the lenb.thy course of his check writing behavior may have been interrupted or corrected much earlier. E P R s : 3,3,3, ART 15: 1 Feb 89, Sheppard AFB, TX - Article 107. Approve t h e request f o r discharge, but d i r e c t t h a t Sgt; ---------------: service c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n be e i t h e r honorabl e o r general under honorable conditions, reasons be given why the s e r v i c e c...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01009
He was credited with 7 years, 2 months, and 29 days active service (includes 160 days of lost time due to confinement) (total of all periods of service). They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02304
On 29 Nov 79, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB considered and denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. In considering the applicants overall record of service, the FBI Report of Investigation, and including the letters of support and accomplishments since his discharge, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted. ...
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by app 1 icant . Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.