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 CONTENDS THAT:
He is and always has been an honorable person. He states that he signed
his rights away when he was told that he should “take the quick discharge
because it could easily be changed later instead of a hearing or court
martial.” He states that he was young and stupid.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided character reference
statements.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 1953 for a period of
four (4) years.
On 26 June 1954, applicant was court-martialed for failure to repair 18
June and 22 June 1954, and absent without leave (AWOL) 19 June and 21 June
1954. He was found guilty and the following punishment imposed: 30 days
confinement at hard labor and a fine of $55.00.
On 10 August 1954, applicant was court-martialed for leaving his place of
duty on 3 and 4 August 1954. He was found guilty and the following
punishment imposed: 30 days confinement at hard labor and a fine of
$55.00.
On 18 December 1954, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic,
under the provisions of AFR 39-17 by reason of (Unfitness) and received an
undesirable discharge. He served 1 year, 3 months and 3 days total active
duty.
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).
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that they were unable to identify with arrest
record on basis of information furnished. (Exhibit E.)
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not
identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Therefore, they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 June
1999, 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. On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.
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 5 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 March 1999.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 May 1999.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 June 1999.
Exhibit E. FBI Report.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
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: 98-03092 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03458
A special court-martial was convened on 4 June 1954 in Wilmington to address the applicant’s two outstanding AWOL charges, 1 December through 12 March 1954 and 23 through 29 March 1954, where the applicant was found guilty and consequently sentenced to confinement with hard labor for six months and fined $34 per month for six months. The sentence was disapproved and the charges dismissed as the HQ Eastern Defense Force commander found that the applicant had, in fact, been discharged from...
The diagnosis was defective attitude with no evidence of classifiable psychiatric disease. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01447
On 17 October 1951, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial for failing to obey a lawful order. For this incident he was confined at hard labor for four (4) months, and forfeited $50.00 per month for a like period. In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit D).
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...
However, his record as a 17 year old was never expunged. Pursuant to the Board’s request, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning submission of additional post-service evidence (Exhibit E). We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-04016
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04016 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: Jerry Berry HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to upgrade his discharge. (Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02109
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02109 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. DPPRS indicated that the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02694
He had served 1 year, 2 months and 6 days on active service with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL. On 17 March 1959, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded so that he may enter active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.