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
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...
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.
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
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.
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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
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.
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...