RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03113
INDEX CODE: 110.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Counsel did not represent him at his discharge hearing.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
character references, letter, Sterling Police Department, dated 24 November
1999, and other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 2 June 1942, in the grade of
private.
On 21 June 1944, applicant was discharged in the grade of private, under
the provisions of AR 615-360, Section VII (Unfitness), and received an
undesirable discharge. He served 1 year, 9 months, and 1 day total active
duty with 109 days lost time.
On 1 October 1974, the Air Force Correction Board of Military Records
(AFBCMR) granted applicant's request to upgrade his undesirable discharge
to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we are not persuaded that the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to a
fully honorable one. We note the previous Board’s decision in 1974 and
agree with their recommendation. Further we note, that the applicant has
not provided anything essentially different from before. 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 further
clemency is warranted. Therefore, based on the available evidence of
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 6 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Oct 74, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1992-01879A
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit G. On 30 Nov 05, a copy of the FBI Report was forwarded to the applicant for review and/or comment. We therefore recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 05.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C (with Exhibit A). Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. Applicant provided a response to the FBI report, which is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of his undesirable discharge. ...
On 21 Apr 80, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged because of medical reasons (Exhibit C). Regarding the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable, we note that in earlier findings, a determination was made that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02144
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02144 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2006 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There was no discharge case file in the applicant’s military personnel records. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00008
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, has provided applicant’s arrest record which is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A copy of the FBI arrest record was forwarded to applicant on 27 February...
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Since his discharge occurred over 48 years ago and considering he was only 19...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01673
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03647
On 19 September 1957, his commander requested the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he would be discharged for unfitness. DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at that time and, was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00116
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that, on 31 January 1945, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit B. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00116 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
On 3 Jan 45, the Report of Proceedings of the Board of Officers findings were that the applicant gave evidence of traits of character other than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions as provided for in Section II (he was unfit to associate with enlisted men). Based on information contained in applicant’s application, information contained in the Discharge Board proceedings and applicant’s master personnel records, DPPRS finds no new evidence to indicate his discharge,...