ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 88-02610
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 7 Nov 88, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general (see
Exhibit G).
On 30 Nov 92, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
for reconsideration to upgrade his discharge to honorable (see
Exhibit H).
On 10 Oct 00, applicant provided additional evidence and requested
reconsideration of his application (see Exhibit I).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report
indicating that on the basis of information furnished, they were
unable to locate an arrest record (see Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We have
reviewed the entire application and the additional documentation
submitted. However, a majority of the Board is unpersuaded that a
revision of the earlier determination in this case is warranted. In
this respect, we note that in earlier findings of this case, the
Board agreed with the Office of The Judge Advocate General and
adopted their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the
applicant had not been the victim of an error or injustice and based
on the available evidence of record, found no basis upon which to
recommend favorable action on his application. We noted applicant’s
contentions and the documents provided with his most recent
submission pertaining to his post-service activities. However,
after reviewing the circumstances of his separation from the Air
Force, the majority of the Board does not believe that his discharge
should be upgraded based on clemency.
2. Although applicant has provided statements attesting to his
character and while we commend him on his post-service
accomplishments, the Board majority does not find these achievements
sufficient to offset the reason for his discharge due to the
seriousness of the offenses committed. Accordingly, the earlier
decision to deny his application is affirmed.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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 13 February 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.
Mr. Novel voted to upgrade applicant’s discharge to general but
does not wish to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. ROP, dated 7 Nov 88, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. ROP, dated 28 Dec 92, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter fr applicant, dated 10 Oct 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. FBI Investigative Report, dated 19 Jan 01.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of , Docket Number 88-002610
I have carefully reviewed all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that favorable
action is not warranted regarding the applicant’s request that his
dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.
After reviewing the available documentation, I believe
applicant’s discharge should be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
In arriving at my decision, I note that while the dishonorable
discharge the applicant received may have been appropriate at the
time, and I, in no way, condone the behavior which led to his court-
martial conviction, he has suffered its effects for over 15 years.
From the evidence before me, including the statement from the
victim, it appears that he has served his sentence, has been a law-
abiding citizen and is highly thought of by his family members and
others he has come in contact with and has become a productive
member of society.
Therefore, since it serves no useful purpose to the Air Force
or to society in general to continue the nature of applicant’s
discharge at this late date and since it appears he has become a
responsible citizen, it is my decision that his discharge be
upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
AFBCMR 88-02610
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 , be corrected to show that on 27 August 1986, he
was discharged with service characterized as general (under
honorable conditions).
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01144A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-01144 INDEX CODE 106.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his 1998 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 8 Jul 96, the US Air Force Court of...
On 19 September 1955, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his BCD to under honorable conditions (general) (Exhibit C). Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ...
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...
On 10 Aug 53, he was reduced to the grade of Airman 3rd Class under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report at appointed time to his place of duty and making a false statement. On 25 Oct 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) examined and reviewed the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the type or nature of his discharge, and accordingly denied his request (see Exhibit C). ...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On , the Board considered and denied applicant’s request (Exhibit F). On , the applicant provided a five-page statement, with attachments, and requests the Board reconsider his application (see Exhibit G). DPPPR believes the applicant received the appropriate decoration for his accomplishments and recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for upgrade of his AFAM with 2OLC to the AFCM with 1OLC.
AF | BCMR | CY1990 | BC 1990 02737 2
On 20 August 2009, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit L). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant correcting the records to upgrade the applicants discharge. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...
He then received a third court-martial conviction for failure to go. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that after receiving what he was told to be a general discharge, because of financial and family problems, he went to flight school.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C., provided a copy of an investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Panel Chair Exhibits: A.
On 04 May 2000, the applicant appeared and testified, with counsel, before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). Evidence of record reflects that the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was upgraded by the Air Force Discharge Review Board to under other than honorable conditions on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 May 00.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02610
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02610 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonselection for promotion to the grade of major by the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Major Selection Board be set aside, and he be reconsidered for promotion at a later date. ...