RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03653
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
provided an Investigative Report that is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial. A complete
copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is
attached 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 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
applicant’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 his separation was inappropriate. Therefore, in
view of the above, and in the absence of 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
applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and available evidence related to his post-service activities
and accomplishments. We do not believe that clemency is warranted at this
time.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 01-03653 in
Executive Session on 16 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jan 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Feb 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Exhibit F. Investigative Report, FBI.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Mar 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
The commander told him he could, but that he would have to receive and undesirable discharge; however, after his discharge he could request the Veterans Administration (VA) upgrade his discharge to general. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. Exhibit B.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.
Applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was discharged on 4 June 1980, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, by reason of Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, with a UOTHC discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01769
He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service. After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03309
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the applicant should be discharged without probation and rehabilitation. Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy. Based on activities reflected on the FBI report, we also find no compelling reason which would warrant upgrading his discharge on the basis...
The medical doctor recommended that he be considered for appearance before a Board of Officers (BO) with a view toward his separation from the Air Force. In addition, he was requested to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (see Exhibit F). Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of applicant’s discharge is warranted on the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01967
Other than the applicant’s attached brief and a copy of his Certificate of Military Service obtained from NPRC, the facts leading to the discharge are not available in his records. On 7 December 1979 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03358
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03358 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is...
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...