RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00057
INDEX CODE 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He feels that he did not deserve an undesirable discharge. He had two
courts-martial that led to his discharge and both of them were because
of his drinking.
In support of his application, the applicant submits DD Forms 293 and
214, a letter from Lincoln Police Department, a certificate from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs and a personal letter. His complete
submission, with attachments, is 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 D.
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 applicant (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. The applicant met a Board of Officers
on 18 Dec 53 and the Board recommended the member be discharged with
an undesirable discharge. The Discharge Authority approved the
discharge on 2 Feb 54. The applicant had been sentenced by three
previous Summary Courts-Martial, on 20 Feb 52, 13 Mar 52, and 13
Nov 53, for drunk and disorderly conduct. He was convicted by Special
Courts-Martial on 23 Jan 53 for threatening to unlawfully strike a
female. Punishment included confinement to hard labor, forfeiture of
pay and restriction to the base. He also had two Articles 15 that
resulted in nonjudicial punishment. Repeated counseling by his
commander and supervisors failed to elicit satisfactory responses. He
had 121 days of lost time. A Discharge Review Board reviewed the case
on 20 Aug 54 and denied upgrade. The applicant did not submit any new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. He provided no other facts warranting a change
in his discharge.
Accordingly, DPPRS recommended his records remain the same and his
request be denied. He did not file a timely request.
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 1 March 2002, for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 a thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to general (under
honorable conditions). We find no impropriety in the characterization
of the applicant's discharge. It appears that responsible officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do
not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated
or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which
entitled at the time of discharge. We conclude, therefore, that the
discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. The Board is
of the opinion that the documents submitted by the applicant do not
provide any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing. In the absence of such
evidence, favorable action is not recommended.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-00057
in Executive Session on 25 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 29 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
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). ...
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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 59 and was discharged on 20 May 63 with an undesirable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s reconstructed military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. In response to the Board's request, the FBI provided a copy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00596
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00596 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. His sentence consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1), 30 days of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $30. On 8 Sep 59, the Air Force Discharge...
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...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01298
He was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of active service (excludes 35 days lost time due to periods of AWOL and confinement). Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 02, w/atchs.
As of this date, this office has received no response. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his separation code should remain the same since he did in fact, voluntarily request discharge for the good of the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...