RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00370
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated
incident (pre-service civilian conviction - he was 17 years old) in
all his months of service, with no other adverse action. After he had
enlisted and was waiting to attend basic training, he was with a group
of teenagers who were arrested for burglary and car theft. He was
told by the judge that if he pleaded guilty, he would be placed on
probation and have his record expunged. However, his record as a 17
year old was never expunged. He has subsequently become a
constructive and productive taxpaying citizen that warrants all
benefits, just like any other veteran.
In support of his request, the applicant submits DD Form 293
(Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed
Forces of the United States) and a copy of his resume (Exhibit A).
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's military personnel records reflect that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 25 Apr 55 for a period of 4 years. He received
an undesirable discharge on 10 Mar 56 under the provisions of AFR 39-
22, Para. 5 (civil court conviction). He had completed a total of 7
months and 26 days of active duty service at the time of discharge.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 17 Aug 99, that, on the basis of data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in 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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, indicated that, on 23 Feb 56,
applicant’s commander requested the applicant be involuntarily
discharged due to his civil conviction. On 20 Jan 56, the applicant
was found guilty of burglary, with intent to commit theft and was
sentenced to confinement in the Texas State penitentiary for 3 years,
to be confined and imprisoned for the period of not less than 2 nor
more than 3 years. On 23 Feb 56, the discharge authority approved the
recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be given an
under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.
DPPRS recommended the application be denied. DPPRS stated that the
discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of the
applicant’s discharge. The record indicates the applicant’s military
service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. The applicant
did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor
did he provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he
received 43 years ago (Exhibit C).
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 10
May 1999 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, a letter was sent to the applicant
concerning submission of additional post-service evidence (Exhibit E).
Other than an undated letter, the additional evidence the applicant
submitted was included in his application package (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. 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 noted the
documentation the applicant provided regarding his post-service
activities. While we commend the applicant for his post-service
accomplishments, we do not find this limited evidence sufficient to
warrant upgrading his discharge based on clemency at this time. We
therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action
on the applicant’s request.
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 27 September 1999 and 23 December 1999, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr.Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 99, w/atchs, and
Letter from applicant, dated 17 Aug 99, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 99.
Exhibit D. Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 May 99 and
AFBCMR, dated 21 Jul 99, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 99.
Exhibit F. Note from applicant, undated, forwarding atchs.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
In view of the findings, the board recommended that the applicant be discharged and furnished an undesirable discharge. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. Accordingly, DPPRS recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit C).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00473 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03092 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to general and he be awarded the Good Conduct Medal. On 16 December 1954, the discharge authority accepted the application for discharge for unfitness and directed the applicant be issued an undesirable...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00662 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge and a waiver to reenlist was considered and denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 21 March 1958 (Exhibit B). ...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01912
His record has been good since leaving the Air Force and he has no arrests. The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 Aug 05, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01912 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
He has two honorable discharges and one general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he has tried many times over the years to get his discharge upgraded. BARBARA A. WESTGATE Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-00818 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records...
In his 20 April 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability discharge. Also provided was a statement from an individual who asserts he saw a drill instructor assault the applicant and “signed a police report on this matter in 1975 for the airforce police.” All of these letters, with their attachments, are at Exhibit I. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01124
In his 20 April 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability discharge. Also provided was a statement from an individual who asserts he saw a drill instructor assault the applicant and “signed a police report on this matter in 1975 for the airforce police.” All of these letters, with their attachments, are at Exhibit I. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,...
The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.