RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01433
INDEX CODE: 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1955 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be changed to an honorable or an
under honorable conditions discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He took $20.00 from the open footlocker of an individual who refused
to pay him for work he had done on the individual’s car. He admits he
did a “dumb thing” and states he has never had trouble with the law
after the service. He provides seven character references, the most
recent of which is dated 1989.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the 18 May 1955 review
of the Staff Judge Advocate and the letter prepared by the appropriate
office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite
these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the data furnished,
they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed
the appeal, provided the facts of military justice actions and
recommended denial. The applicant does not allege that any injustice
or legal error occurred during his court-
martial. His version of events differs significantly from the facts
elicited at trial, as well as his own confession at the time. He
neglects to mention that he was actually convicted and discharged for
stealing money while he was in confinement after his previous court-
martial conviction for wrongfully appropriating another airman’s
funds. He also fails to mention his other court-martial conviction for
falsifying an identification card. All three of the applicant’s
convictions were for crimes involving dishonesty. There is no
substantive justification for upgrading the applicant’s BCD.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the evaluation, contending he was a devoted
serviceman until he got shipped away and became involved with the
wrong group of people. He is a changed person and “begs for a second
chance.” He provides four more character references.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions
and the character references he provided are duly noted; however, we
do not find this sufficiently compelling to warrant upgrading his BCD.
The applicant was convicted and discharged for stealing money while in
confinement after a previous court-martial conviction for wrongfully
appropriating another airman’s funds. He also was convicted for
falsifying an identification card. It appears that the responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the discharge,
and the applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that he was not afforded all the rights
to which he was entitled. Further, given the fact that he had three
court-martial convictions during his brief period of military service,
we are not inclined to
upgrade his discharge on the basis of clemency. As the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an
injustice, we recommend his request be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 6 July 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member
Ms. Patricia A. Vestal, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 2 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01530
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 12 Jul 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00602
JAJM states there was no error or injustice related to the sentence. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member The following documentary evidence was considered in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00080
The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he never stole the kits and was deceived by the person that actually stole the kits that the kits were out of date. His lawyer told him that if he pled guilty, he would just get a year of confinement and a fine; whereas, if he did not, he could face 20 years of confinement. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01117
The only error that may have occurred is that the applicant was sentenced to a BCD. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 23 December 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
The only error that may have occurred is that the applicant was sentenced to a BCD. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 23 December 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01861
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01861 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 15 December 1953, the Air Force Board of Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. After reviewing all the evidence presented, we are not...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03090
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03090 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM states an application must be filed within three years after...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01574 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04082
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04082 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. -- On 21 May 81, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01712
JAJM acknowledges the applicant’s claim to additional witnesses and their statements but decry the fact that the applicant provided no evidence to refute the claim that he did not, as required by German law, provide the victim with identification information following the accident. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...