Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800146
Original file (9800146.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00146

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he joined the service  he  was  young  and  emotionally  immature.   He
states his transgressions were not of a contrived or malicious nature.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits character references  and  other
documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  18  September  1962,  for  a
period of four years.

Applicant received  2  Article  15’s  for  failure  to  repair.   Punishment
imposed:   placed  on  the  control  roster  for  90   days,   received   an
unsatisfactory airman  performance  report  (APR),  reduction  in  grade  to
airman basic, forfeiture of $25 per month for  two  months.   Applicant  did
consult counsel and waived his right to appear before a board.

On 10 October 1963, applicant’s commander recommended that he be  eliminated
from the Air Force for demonstrating unfitness  for  military  duty  by  his
discreditable involvement with military authorities and  by  his  habits  of
uncleanness and poor physical hygiene.

On 1 November 1963, he was discharged in the grade of  airman  basic,  under
the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Misconduct),  and  received  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 1  year  1  month  and  14  days
total active duty with no lost time.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative  report  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and  states  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority and that  the  applicant  was  provided  full  administrative  due
process.  Applicant did not submit evidence or identify any  errors  in  the
discharge processing nor provided facts  that  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on  9
March 1998 for review and response within 30 days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.     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.   We
conclude,  therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings  were  proper   and
characterization  of  the  discharge  was  appropriate   to   the   existing
circumstances.

4.    We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis  of  clemency.   We  have  considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events  which  precipitated  the
discharge, and available evidence related  to  post-service  activities  and
accomplishments.  Based on the evidence of record, we cannot  conclude  that
clemency is warranted.  Applicant has not  provided  sufficient  information
of post-service activities and  accomplishments  for  us  to  conclude  that
applicant has overcome the behavioral traits  which  caused  the  discharge.
Should   applicant   provide   statements   from   community   leaders   and
acquaintances attesting to applicant's good  character  and  reputation  and
other evidence of successful post-service rehabilitation,  this  Board  will
reconsider this case  based  on  the  new  evidence.   We  cannot,  however,
recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.

5.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the  application
was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  the  application  will
only be reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant
evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 28 July 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                  Mr. Allen Beckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 (293), dated 13 January 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.






   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 February 1998.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 March 1998.





                                MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00146

    Original file (BC-1998-00146.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provided facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge. We conclude, therefore, that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802705

    Original file (9802705.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1957, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-18 (Court Conviction), and received a bad conduct discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9802705

    Original file (9802705.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1957, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-18 (Court Conviction), and received a bad conduct discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00762

    Original file (BC-2005-00762.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801210

    Original file (9801210.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Jun 58, the applicant's commander requested that he be separated from the Air Force with an undesirable discharge. The records also indicated that the applicant was court-martialed and found guilty of only one of the two specifications and charges. DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which would warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received almost 40 years ago.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00040

    Original file (BC-2003-00040.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Most of the applicant’s records were destroyed in the Jul 73 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255

    Original file (BC-2004-01255.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801795

    Original file (9801795.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the case and provided the pertinent information regarding the applicant’s demotion. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed or his grade restored. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03923

    Original file (BC-2003-03923.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant has submitted a copy of her late husband’s death certificate, and a copy of a letter from the National Personnel Records Center dated 12 November 2003. Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing, nor provide facts that support upgrading the discharge to honorable (Exhibit C). Novel, Panel Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 03, with attachments.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802273

    Original file (9802273.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02273 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Applicant has provided, through his Senator’s office, documentation regarding his post service activities. We also find insufficient...