RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-03263
INDEX NUMBER: A39; 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member who was discharged from the Air Force
on 19 April 1962, under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with
an undesirable discharge. He had served 3 years, 5 months and 16 days
on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s available military records, 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 Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,
reviewed this application and recommended denial. On 5 March 1962,
the applicant was notified that involuntary discharge action had been
taken against him for his frequent involvement with civilian and
military authorities, an established pattern of failing to pay just
debts and for being unclean. Unit records indicated the applicant was
counseled 14 times by his first sergeant. These did not include a
total of 24 letters of indebtedness. He was court-martialed once for
being AWOL and received two Articles 15 for being AWOL and failing to
comply with a written order. He also was convicted twice by civilian
authorities for being drunk in public and for disturbance. The
applicant waived his right to counsel and his right to an appearance
before a discharge board. On 10 April 1962, the discharge authority
approved the recommendation. Based upon the record, the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority and, although the
applicant had completed 80% of his enlistment, his frequent
infractions warranted the commander-directed character of service. A
complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
11 February 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a report of the applicant’s arrest
record (Exhibit E). The report was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, he
has not responded.
_________________________________________________________________
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, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the
applicant’s overall record of repeated disciplinary infractions
warranted the type of discharge he received. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 26 July 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
By a majority vote, the members voted to deny the request. Mr.
Petkoff voted to correct the record, but did not desire to submit a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 99, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Feb 00.
Exhibit E. FBI Report.
Exhibit F. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding FBI Report, dtd 30 May 00.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01344 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 16 Dec 66, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 16 Dec 99. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair AFBCMR 99-01778 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01873 INDEX CODE: 110.00 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Nevertheless, noting that the former servicemember suffered the adverse effects of his undesirable discharge for almost 37 years before his death in 1984 and...
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. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Mar 00.
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03022
On 16 Apr 62, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a civil court conviction. Applicant was discharged on 26 Apr 62, in the grade of airman basic (E-1), under the provisions of AFM 39-22, with separation designation number 284 (Involuntarily discharged for misconduct, civil court disposition, processed by waiver of entitlement to a board hearing), and was issued an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)...
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant was court-martialed because he pled guilty in a civil court and was sentenced to one-year civil confinement for assault with intent to rob. They further...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit D). The report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00759
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (Identification Record No. GREGORY H. PETKOFF Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an 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.