RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03247
INDEX CODE: 10.00, 73.00,
73.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions
(general).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant did not make any contentions. He offered his sincere
apology plus more than 40 years of remorse.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 Jan 50, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
(RegAF) for a period of four years.
On 20 Jan 54, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-10 (Expiration of Term of Service) in the grade of airman
second class. He was credited with four years of active service.
On 28 Mar 57, applicant enlisted in the RegAF for a period of four
years.
On 11 Mar 59, applicant was tried by a special court-martial for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 Dec 58 to 23 Jan 59. He
was convicted as charged and was sentenced to three months of
confinement at hard labor, forfeitures of $50 per month for three
months, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). He had one previous
court-martial conviction (not available in applicant’s records) that
was considered.
On 11 Jun 59, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-18, Special Court-Martial Order #55, dated 3 Jun 59, with an bad
conduct discharge in the grade of airman third class. He was
credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 14 days of active service.
The Chief, Appellate Records Branch, AFLSA/JAJM, provided an
unredacted copy of the special court-martial record of trial
(Exhibit C).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report
which is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed
this application and indicated that the applicant’s master personnel
records contain only limited information. He does not claim an
injustice or an error in the discharge processing of his case.
However, considering the discharge occurred over 40 years ago and
considering his previous four years of honorable service and the
offense that caused his BCD, DPPRS recommends clemency. If a check
of the FBI files proves negative, DPPRS recommends an upgrade of
applicant’s discharge to under honorable conditions (general).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit E.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
7 Apr 00 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.
A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to applicant on 8 Jun 00. 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After
careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no
evidence that the applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to
the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time,
or that the actions taken against the applicant were based on
factors other than his own misconduct. In addition, in view of the
contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that
the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade to honorable or
general on the basis of clemency. Having found no error or
injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the
applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to
grant favorable action on his 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 21 September 2000, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 22 Feb 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. FBI Report.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Mar 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Apr 00.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00365
His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to the rank of airman basic with an effective date and date of rank of 8 Sep 58. The discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 27 Mar 59, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03596
On 23 June 1957, he was honorably discharged and on 24 June 1957, reenlisted in the RegAF for a period of four years. In an application, dated 13 August 1972, he requested his discharge be upgraded to one under honorable conditions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 13 August 1959, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00860
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The evidence of record reflects that, after considering all matters presented by the applicant, his commander determined he had committed the offense alleged, and made the decision to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ; the applicant did not appeal the punishment. The applicant does not contest the merits of the Article 15, but simply requests that his Article 15 record...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00936 INDEX NUMBER:106.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. Applicant submitted a brief summary of his...
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01496
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his available military personnel records. The basis of the applicant's request for relief was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action, and did not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief. By letter, dated 19 Aug 03, the Board's staff requested that the applicant provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00673
Pursuant to the Board's request, the FBI, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM indicated that under 10 USC 1552(f), the AFBCMR’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial is limited. We do not believe an honorable discharge is warranted due to the limited documentation provided by the applicant regarding his activities since his...
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of a FBI Identification Record, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended that the Board, as a matter of clemency, grant the applicant relief by upgrading his dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. ...
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.