Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0202224
Original file (0202224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02224
            INDEX ODE 110.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1963 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He thought he would receive an honorable discharge after  six  months.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jun 61.  He  was
assigned to the 507th Consolidated Aircraft  Maintenance  Squadron  at
Kincheloe AFB, MI. He was promoted to airman third class on 22 Aug 61.
 His two performance reports for the periods ending 29 Mar 62  and  29
Mar 63 had overall ratings  of  “Excellent  Airman”  and  “Exceptional
Airman,” respectively.

On 14 Feb 62, he received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for  smoking  in
bed,  not  reporting  a  fire  promptly  and  causing  destruction  of
government property.

Following a summary court-martial whose sentence was  approved  on  11
Sep 62,the applicant was restricted to base  for  60  days  and  fined
$57.00 for stealing a case of beer and resisting an  officer’s  lawful
apprehension on 14 Jul 62.

Following a summary court-martial whose sentence was  approved  on  17
Jan 63, the applicant was reduced from airman third  class  to  airman
basic and fined $55.00 for being absent without leave (AWOL)  2-9  Jan
63.

On 13 Feb 63, punishment by Article 15 confined  him  to  correctional
custody for seven days and fined him $19.00 for failure to report  for
duty on 2, 3 and 4 Feb 63.  He did not appeal.

On 23 Apr 63, punishment by  Article  15  confined  the  applicant  to
correctional custody with hard labor for 30 days and fined him  $80.00
for being AWOL 18-22 Apr 63. He did not appeal.

A 7 May 63  psychiatric  evaluation  dated  7  May  63  indicated  the
applicant had no desire for a military career, was  dissatisfied  with
his duties, and therefore deliberately took the actions he  did.   The
medical officer  found  the  applicant  was  not  suffering  from  any
evidence of defective reasoning or mental disease,  that  he  had  the
mental capacity to distinguish right from  wrong  and  understood  the
consequences  of  his  actions.  He  had  no  psychiatric  disease  or
condition  warranting  separation  under  AFM  35-4  provisions.   The
diagnosis was defective attitude  with  no  evidence  of  classifiable
psychiatric disease. Administrative disposition was recommended.

On 13 May 63, the commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to
recommended separation with a general discharge for apathy,  defective
attitude and inability to expend effort constructively. The  applicant
declined  to  submit  statements.   On  24  May  63,   the   commander
recommended a general discharge. The case was found legally sufficient
and, on 6 Jun 63, the discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant’s
general discharge.

The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic on 28 Jun 61
with a general characterization. He had 1 year, 11 months and  2  days
of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded indicating he had a serious  drinking  problem
and asked for help. He was told his general discharge would be changed
to honorable automatically after six months.  It never was.  After  20
years of not drinking he wants it changed as he was told.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded
his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. His contentions
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these   uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the evidence of record. The applicant has not shown that his  repeated
misconduct did not support the  discharge  he  received,  nor  has  he
submitted information demonstrating he has become a productive  member
of society since his separation from the service.  The  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or  an
injustice and, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                 Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02224 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 02.



                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03781

    Original file (BC-2005-03781.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03781 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Jun 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1963 general discharge be changed to honorable. On 10 May 63, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic with a general characterization of service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-04016

    Original file (bc-2002-04016.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04016 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: Jerry Berry HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review Board (DRB) to upgrade his discharge. (Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202759

    Original file (0202759.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His one Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period closing 29 Sep 72 has an overall rating of 6. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 17 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200199

    Original file (0200199.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He recommended that applicant be discharged from the service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is now retired and a member of the American Legion. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102553

    Original file (0102553.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 Feb 58, the commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (Conviction by Civil Court) with an undesirable discharge. Considering that the discharge occurred over 43 years ago and the type of offense committed by the applicant, the appropriate office of the Air Force has indicated that they would recommend clemency if a check of the FBI files proves negative. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629

    Original file (BC-2004-02629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00178

    Original file (BC-2005-00178.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As for his request for an honorable discharge, we noted the post-service information he provided. The Board majority concludes the applicant’s service should not be characterized at the same level as those military members with unblemished service and this application should therefore be denied. The Board majority also voted to deny the applicant’s request to have his 1954 general discharge upgraded to honorable.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01751

    Original file (BC-2003-01751.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01751 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 7 March 1995. After thoroughly reviewing the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01431

    Original file (BC-2005-01431.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively discharged in 1963 for unsuitability due to passive- aggressive personality disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - I (DSM-I). The DVA has granted service-connected disability compensation based on that psychiatrist's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01516

    Original file (BC-2002-01516.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Feb 02, the applicant was notified of his squadron commander’s intent to recommend an other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct based on the SCM finding, the Article 15 and the LOR. On 14 Feb 02, the applicant requested an administrative discharge board and lengthy service consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the Article 15...