RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03267
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to general.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
What happened to him in 1953 was his fault and the wrongfulness of it
still makes him suffer today.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 11 September 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of private. Prior to the events cited below, he was
promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2). He received
character and efficiency ratings of excellent on 2 November 1951 and
14 February 1952; fair and satisfactory on 31 March 1953; and very
good and satisfactory on 25 April 1953.
On 10 June 1952 and 4 October 1952, he was convicted by summary courts-
martial for being drunk and disorderly on station on or about 1 June
1952 and 30 September 1952. He was reduced in grade to basic airman
and ordered to forfeit $50.00 by the former military court and ordered
to forfeit $50.00 by the latter.
On 18 February 1953, he was convicted by a special court-martial for
commission of an assault by striking him on the head with a dangerous
weapon, to wit: a whiskey bottle. He was sentenced to be discharged
from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeiture of $50
per month for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for 6 months.
On 19 June 1953, he was discharged from the Air Force with a bad
conduct discharge. He had served 1 year, 5 months and 10 days on
active duty. Time lost was 168 days due to confinement.
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 drunk and disorderly on station in both trials.
However, since the discharge occurred over 47 years ago and the
records show the applicant enlisted underage with parental consent,
was only 19 years old at the time of his court-martial, and
considering the nature of the misconduct that resulted in his bad
conduct discharge, they recommend clemency. If a check of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation files proves negative, they recommend an
upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions (general).
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 March 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. In addition, on
14 April 2000, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant
for comment. 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 indication that
the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were 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 characterization of the applicant’s discharge warrants an upgrade
to general (under honorable conditions) 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 12 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Feb 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Mar 00.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00762
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Exhibit B.
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-00206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00206 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge. On or about 1 October 1952, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 12 February 1957, the Air Force Discharge...
On 19 February 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge. We note that the applicant provided some character references pertaining to his post-service activities; however, the Board does not believe this evidence is sufficient to warrant clemency. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 December 2001, under...
For this incident, he was ordered to be restricted to the limits of his squadron area for a period of sixty (60) days and to forfeit fifty dollars ($50) of his pay. On 19 November 1954, 3 August 1955 and 23 June 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade. On 12 July 2002, a letter from Congressman Markey’s office requesting assistance in upgrading applicant’s discharge was received by this office (Exhibit G).
Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. On 16 March 2001, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within thirty (30) days (Exhibit F). Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 February 2001.
The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable 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: On 15 Feb 01, the Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the applicant did not provide evidence of errors...
On 13 Nov 52, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 Oct 52 until on or about 12 Nov 52. The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 9 Dec 1953, he was discharged with...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03382
He was convicted by Special Court-Martial (SPCM) Order Number 31, dated 3 April 1953, for on or about 17 March 1953, without proper authority, through neglect destroy, by throwing a shoe through a window pane, a window pane of value of about $2.50, military property of the United States; on or about 17 March 1953, assaulting an individual by striking at him with his fist and on or about 17 March 1953, disorderly in quarters. DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master...