RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02720
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her husband’s dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. Her husband’s military service be changed from the Army to the Air
Force.
3. Her husband’s date of discharge be corrected to reflect that he was
discharged in 1946 versus 1950.
4. Her husband’s name be corrected from Jack Nishnick to John Niznik.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband was a respected employee and was active in church and community
affairs. Since submitting her application he has passed away due to
degenerative brain disease. His dishonorable discharge has no apparent
support. His Social Security Administration (SSA) statement of earning
show that he was employed during the 1946 – 1950 timeframe, the same
timeframe military documents show that he was confined.
In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of her husband’s birth
certificate; SSA itemized statement of earnings; a copy of her husband’s
certification of military service; a statement from her husband’s physician
with related medical documents and a copy of her Power of Attorney. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The former member’s records were destroyed by fire in 1973 at the National
Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO. As a result, the following is the
only known information pertaining to the applicant’s service and was
extracted from the partially reconstructed record and from documents
provided by the applicant.
The former member enlisted in the Army of the United States Air Corp on 24
February 1942. On 23 January 1945, he was convicted by general court-
martial of stealing $105 and of unlawful possession of ration coupons. He
was sentenced to be confined for 5 years, to forfeit all pay and allowances
and to a dishonorable discharge. On 9 November 1945, his sentence to
confinement in excess of two and half years was remitted by order of the
Secretary of War.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter(s) prepared
by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D &E.
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 former member (see Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. JAJM states that the
former member was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by general court-
martial, of stealing $105 and of unlawful possession of ration coupons.
JAJM states that based on the applicant’s prior history of misconduct, a
court-martial was an appropriate forum to deal with his conduct. The
applicant’s requests to overturn or void her husband’s court-martial felony
conviction and upgrade of his discharge from dishonorable to honorable are
without merit. With respect to his service date, JAJM states that it is
certainly within the realm of possibility that the former member was
released from confinement in 1946 and his discharge was not executed until
1950 due to either appellate review or some other reason. Absent any other
evidence presented by the applicant, there is a presumption of regularity
in such proceedings (see Exhibit C).
AFPC/DPSAMP recommends the application be denied. DPSAMP states that the
birth certificate the former member provided during his enlistment
indicates that the former member was born on 17 February 1921 as “ .”
Although “ ” appears in parenthesis on the birth certificate, it is
their rationale that it appears for pronunciation purposes. There is no
evidence that Mr. legally assumed the name “ ” before he was
discharged from the Army Air Corps (see Exhibit D).
AFPC/DPPR recommends the application be partially granted. DPPR states
that the SSA-2826 records show that the former member had earned wages
during the period October 1946 through 23 January 1950; the same period he
was supposedly in confinement. DPPR states that based on this evidence
they recommend changing his statement of service date to reflect that he
was discharged effective 29 October 1946 (see Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20
April 2001. Applicant responded by requesting a copy of her husband’s
personnel record. On 13 July 2001, the application was administratively
closed. On 23 July 2001, applicant requested her case be reopened and
clemency consideration be given to upgrade her husband’s dishonorable
discharge to honorable (see Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________
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 with respect to the former
member’s branch of military service; name change from to
and upgrade of his discharge.
a. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that
recharacterization of the former member’s discharge is warranted. During a
time of war, the former member was tried and convicted of larceny and
wrongful possession of a gas ration book. His sentence was within the
maximum allowable under the Articles of War. Other than her assertions,
the applicant has provided no evidence showing her husband was improperly
tried or that his discharge was excessive. We are mindful of the fact that
more than 50 years has elapsed since his discharge and have noted the
information provided by the applicant to support her request. However,
without more expansive information pertaining to her husband’s activities
since leaving the service which would lend support to her assertions that
he was a good citizen and a productive member of the community, we are not
inclined to exercise clemency in this case.
b. Favorable consideration of the applicant’s request that her
husband’s records be corrected to show he was a member of the Air Force
rather than the Army Air Force would not be appropriate since the Air Force
had not yet been established as a separate service. In addition, the
available service documents as well as the birth certificate provided
indicate that the former member’s name at the time he was in the service
was “ .” We therefore find no basis to change his existing
records to show his name was “ .”
4. Notwithstanding the above, some doubt has been created as to the
propriety of the use of the date 22 January 1950 as his date of separation.
We note the Chief, Military Justice Division’s statement, that it is
certainly possible that the former member was released from confinement in
1946 but his discharge was not executed until 1950 due to administrative
processes or appellate review. This is further substantiated by his Social
Security statement of earnings that reflects his employment status during
the latter part of October 1946 through December 1950. In light of the
above mitigating factor, we believe any doubt should be resolved in the
applicant’s favor and that the former member’s records should be corrected
to show he was discharged on 29 October 1946.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that he was discharged effective 29
October 1946, rather than 22 January 1950.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 20 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number
00-02720:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 5 Jan 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSAMP, dated 14 Feb 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPR, dated 10 Apr 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Apr 01.
Exhibit G. FBI Investigative Report, dated 16 Aug 01.
Exhibit F. Letters between AFBCMR and applicant.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02720
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 he was discharged effective
29 October 1946, rather than 22 January 1950.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00303
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00303 INDEX CODE: A68.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jul 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant, the son of the former servicemember who appears to be acting on behalf of his mother, requests that his father’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable; the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Assistant NCOIC, Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed applicant’s request and states that considering the discharge was almost 30 years ago, the type of offenses committed, and the fact that the member received a psychiatrist’s recommendation that he should have been administratively separated, clemency is recommended. Applicant indicated that she does not wish to provide a response to...
On 26 Jul 56, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the deceased member’s request that his BCD be upgraded to honorable. JAJM defers to AF/JAG for an opinion on the issue of civil law on whether the applicant is a proper applicant to file an application for correction of the deceased’s military records. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 31 January 2002, under...
___________________________________________________________________ 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 Force at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSAMP reviewed this application and recommended denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the former member’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request to upgrade her late husband’s discharge be denied. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPTR states, in part, that there is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00810
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00810 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. Although the applicant’s adjudged sentence included a dishonorable discharge and total forfeitures, his punishment was mitigated with an...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02316
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSAMP recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a name change. If the court order was dated on or before the applicant’s discharge date, a correction would be possible. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03445 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. On 28 Sep 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the member’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly...
For an accounting of the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. On 28 Nov 01, the applicant’s physician submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that the applicant was unable to make a rational choice regarding the SBP declination. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...