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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The discharge given was incorrect and her late husband should have been
given a General (under honorable conditions) discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 29 Aug 51, the deceased member enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)
for a period of four years.
The evidence in the record reflects that:
a. The former member received Article 15 punishment for failure to
repair for duty on 8 and 9 Dec 51, with resulted in a reduction to the
grade of private (rank converted to airman basic on 1 Apr 52).
b. He received three court-martials: (1) for being AWOL 6-12 Feb
52, with punishment consisting of 27 days of restriction and forfeiture of
$45; (2) for being AWOL 24 May to 1 Jul 52, with punishment consisting of
three months of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $50 per month
for three months; and (3) for being AWOL 24 Nov 52 to 14 Mar 53, for which
he was sentenced to a BCD, six months of confinement to hard labor and
forfeiture of $55 per month for six months.
On 17 Jun 53, the member was discharged from the Air Force with a BCD in
the grade of airman basic. He was credited with 8 months and 22 days of
active service (excludes 391 days of lost time due to 3 periods of AWOL and
4 periods of confinement).
On 28 Sep 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the
member’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify an arrest
record on the basis of the information furnished (Exhibit C).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommends denial. They state
that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. Additionally, no facts warranting an upgrade of the deceased
member’s discharge were furnished.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a three-page
response which is attached at Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________
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 thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find
no evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note that the
service member’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing
Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was
afforded all the rights to which entitled. The applicant has provided no
evidence to indicate that her late husband’s separation was inappropriate.
There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the
service member's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated
the discharge, and available evidence related to his post-service
activities and accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe that
clemency is warranted.
________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 01-03445 in
Executive Session on 26 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Investigative Report, FBI, dated 8 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Feb 02.
PHILIP SHEUERMAN
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01873 INDEX CODE: 110.00 (DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Nevertheless, noting that the former servicemember suffered the adverse effects of his undesirable discharge for almost 37 years before his death in 1984 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02854
The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a personal statement summarizing his accomplishments since leaving the service. Exhibit B. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 03.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03236 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his 25 days of lost time be removed from his records. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force that the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general (under...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02318
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02318 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, or in the alternative, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a letter of character reference from his pastor and deacon board; a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States and his Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing record. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. He also states that when he was discharged, he was told that in six months his discharge would be upgraded.
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 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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03017a
He had completed a total of 3 years and 11 days (not including 122 days of lost time), and was serving in the grade of Airman 2nd Class (E-3) when discharged. He is truly sorry for his actions while in the Air Force and states that he thinks about his undesirable discharge every day. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03017
He had completed a total of 3 years and 11 days (not including 122 days of lost time), and was serving in the grade of Airman 2nd Class (E-3) when discharged. He is truly sorry for his actions while in the Air Force and states that he thinks about his undesirable discharge every day. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.