RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-03265
INDEX NUMBER: A39; 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general 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 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.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that, on the basis of the data furnished,
they are unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. On 8 January 1953, the applicant submitted a
tender of unconditional resignation, stating that he no longer wished
to continue his career in the Air Force and he had been surplus in his
unit for five months. He acknowledged that if his resignation was
accepted, he would receive an honorable or a general discharge,
depending upon the character of service rendered by the commander.
The commander recommended that his application be accepted and that he
be given a general discharge because during his current enlistment, he
had a poor character rating and had been given Article 15 punishment
on two occasions and court-martialed once. He was subsequently
discharged on 18 February 1953, with a general discharge. 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 the character of service the applicant received was
appropriate. 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 applicant on 11
February 2000, for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 considered the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
appropriate Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. 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. We therefore conclude that the discharge
proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was
appropriate to the existing circumstances and find no compelling basis
to disturb the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 99, w/atchs.
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.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
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,...
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. The report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit F). ...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of his discharge from...
On 19 June 1953, he was discharged from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. 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 Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant had two previous summary courts- martial for being...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 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...
On 3 March 1954, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that the applicant was facing a possible court-martial for submitting a false travel claim. After noting the comments provided by the Air...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00007 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant requests that his “2C” reentry (RE) code, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to “3C,” “First Term airman not...