RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00199
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was very young at the time and didn’t understand the disposition of
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 May 1956, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. His
highest grade held was airman third class (A3C/E-2). Applicant’s
grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E 1).
Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of excellent for
the periods 15 May 56 – 17 Jun 56, and 2 Jul 56 - 3 Feb 57.
On 18 Sep 56, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 Aug 56 until on or about 3
Sep 56. He was sentenced to 30 days of hard labor without confinement
and forfeiture of $25.
On 20 Mar 57, applicant was counseled by his supervisor and given
extra detail for being one hour late for work. On 27 Mar 57,
applicant was again counseled and given extra detail for being 15
minutes late for work.
On 4 Apr 57, he was excused from dinner and did not return for 2
hours. His supervisor asked about his absence and he replied with no
excuse. The matter was again brought to the commander’s attention and
he was given an Article 15 with punishment of 2 hours of extra duty
for 14 days. In addition to the counselings, applicant was reminded
on several occasions about his personal appearance by his supervisor
and other members within his chain of command.
The applicant received another Article 15 on 30 Apr 57, for failure to
repair, on or about 26 Apr 57. He acknowledged receipt on the same
date. The commander imposed punishment consisting of demotion to the
grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) and a reprimand. The applicant did not
appeal the punishment.
On 1 May 57, the TDP Commander initiated administrative discharge
action against the applicant under the provisions of Department of the
Air Force Letter, Subject: Discharge of Unproductive Airmen. The
bases for the proposed action were the incidents cited above.
On 4 May 57, the squadron commander concurred with the recommendation
from the TDP Commander. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification on the same date. On 14 May 57, the base
surgeon certified that the applicant had no physical or mental
condition which would warrant consideration by a physical evaluation
board (PEB). On 24 May 57, an evaluation officer explained the action
which was recommended, and advised the applicant he could submit a
rebuttal, which applicant elected not to do. He recommended that
applicant be discharged from the service.
On 28 Jun 57, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16,
with service characterized as under honorable conditions. He was
credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of active service (excludes
8 days of lost time due to a period of AWOL).
On 29 May 61, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered
and disapproved applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general
(under honorable conditions) discharge and waiver to permit
reenlistment (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS found that the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority. They also noted that the applicant did not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts
warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Accordingly, they recommended
his records remain the same and his request be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant indicated that he is now retired and a member of the
American Legion. He has been in public service employment most of his
life since leaving the Air Force and is now retired from the city. He
provided additional supporting documents of his activities since
leaving the service.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.
In applicant’s response to the FBI report, he indicated that the
information in the report reflects a different date of birth and
social security number than his (Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we find that the
discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations
in effect at the time and we find no evidence to indicate that his
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. It does not appear
that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not
afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.
We noted the applicant’s comments concerning the FBI report; however,
the investigative report obtained from the FBI, using his social
security number (SSAN) as an identifier, does reflect his date of
birth (DOB) as well as a different DOB and SSAN. The FBI report
notwithstanding, after careful consideration of the applicant’s
overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and the available evidence related to his post-service
activities, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the
characterization of his service to fully honorable 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 this application AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-00199 in Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Mar 02, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jun 02, w/atch.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jun 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
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.
On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02895
Applicant has also requested that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. After reviewing applicant’s overall record of service and based on the fact that under today’s standards he would receive an honorable discharge, we recommend approval of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Show that on 26 April 1957, he was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
He pled not guilty to the specification and charge; however, he was found guilty and sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 12 months and confinement at hard labor for 12 months. The applicant’s subsequent requests for reconsideration of his application were denied by the Board on 10 Apr 02 and 13 Jun 02 respectively (Exhibit C). Exhibit A.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01278
He began to look for means to support his addiction for which he was convicted. Civilian court conviction consisted of confinement from 21 Feb 56 – 17 Mar 56 (36 days). On 10 Sep 69, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded and for a waiver to permit reenlistment.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00586
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00586 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00847
In a similar appeal, the service-member requested his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 0202418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded so he can be buried in a national cemetery. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's sister...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02110
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. However, they concluded applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the...