RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01768
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was accused of child molestation. The accusation was based on a
partially overheard conversation that was taken in the wrong context. His
counsel made no effort to represent him and advised him to plead guilty.
In support of his request the applicant provided a personal statement
(Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Apr 51 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class having assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 53. On 7 May 54, he
received an undesirable discharge from the Air Force.
Additional 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. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
Examiner’s note: Pursuant to the Board’s request for information, the FBI
indicated that, on the basis of the evidence provided, they were unable to
locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant (see Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed
applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPPRS states that based upon
the lack of documentation in his records, they believe the discharge must
have been consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of
the discharge regulation. Applicant has not provided any new evidence or
identified any errors in his discharge process (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded and reiterates that he did not know he was going to be
discharged as unfit. He was advised to agree with the discharge because no
witnesses were available to substantiate his claims. He questions why he
was promoted after this matter was under investigation if he was guilty of
the charges (see Exhibit E).
By letter dated 27 August 2001, it was requested that the applicant provide
evidence pertaining to his post-service activities (Exhibit G). This
office has not received a response from the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice. Even though the applicant has provided no
evidence to show that his discharge was improper or not in compliance with
appropriate directives, it is our opinion that approval of some relief is
warranted in this case. It appears likely that he has led a stable and
productive life and it appears that there is no evidence that he has had
any subsequent involvement of a derogatory nature since his separation from
the Air Force. In light of the above, we believe that it would be an
injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse effects of an
undesirable discharge. Therefore on the basis of clemency, we believe an
upgrade of his discharge to general (under honorable conditions) is
warranted. His request for upgrade to honorable was considered; however,
in the absence of evidence by the applicant other than his own statements
pertaining to the quality of his service, the facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation, or his activities since leaving the service, we
do not believe that an upgrade to a fully honorable discharge is warranted.
Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected only to the extent
indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 7 May 1954, he was discharged
with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 3 Oct 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 01 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jul 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 01.
Exhibit F. FBI Negative Reply, dated 20 Sep 01.
Exhibit G. AFBCMR Letter, dated 27 August 2001.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-00261
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 7 May 1954, he was
discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions).
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: 01-02024 INDEX CODE: A79.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. The remaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00064
In response to the FBI report, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of a Final Discharge order issued by the State of Utah, and an additional personal statement that restates his request, which are at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
However, considering the discharge occurred over 44 years ago and his remarks about his young age, DPPRS recommends clemency. If a check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation files proves negative, DPPRS recommends the discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge (Exhibit C). Exhibit B.
The available relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s reconstructed military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Based on the activities reflected in the FBI report, we also find no compelling reason to warrant upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. FBI Report.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02156
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02156 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). From 29 August 1952 to 24 September 1952, he was confined in civilian jail. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01232
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01232 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 11 May 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 14 May 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03376
On 11 Dec 59 and 18 Oct 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon...
The applicant was discharged on 14 Apr 70. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030
On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.