RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00239
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He desires his discharge upgraded.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 1958 in the grade
of airman basic for a period of four years.
The applicant received a summary court-martial and was found guilty of
sleeping while on post on 18 June 1958. He received confinement for 30
days and fined $50. The commander’s statement on 5 November 1958 indicates
that the applicant was irresponsible and lacked sense of duty and was
immature.
On 14 July 1958, the applicant was eliminated from the engine mechanic
course due to failing grades. Upon arrival at his duty location, he was
enrolled in an education course but told his commander he would not be able
to pass unless he was relieved from duty to study. He was offered a tutor
for assistance but did not accept.
Applicant was discharged on 7 November 1958, in the grade of airman basic.
He received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the
provisions AFR 39-16 (unproductive airman). He served 6 months and 9 days
total active duty service with 11 days lost time.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report, which is
attached at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. They indicated that based upon the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any new errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of
his discharge. He has not filed a timely request.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at
Exhibit E.
On 8 April 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-
service documentation within fourteen (14) days. Applicant’s response,
with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
On 6 May 2002, a copy of the FBI Investigation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within fourteen (14) 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. We find no impropriety in the characterization of 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 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.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered
applicant's overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and available evidence related to 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00239
in Executive Session on 20 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 January 2002.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 March 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 March 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 March 2002.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 April 2002, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 April 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. FBI Report.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 May 2002, w/atchs.
JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00481 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 24 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general...
The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand. The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand. Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00224
Additionally, he provided character statements, but no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. On 31 October 2002, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within fourteen (14) days. Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended the discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge if a check of the FBI files proves negative. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03986
On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair for squadron detail. 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01773 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 6 April 1962 undesirable (under other than honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01770
---, which is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. Exhibit B. LAWRENCE R. LEEHY Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01770 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02414 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Exhibit C. FBI Report. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 September 2002.
Applicant was discharged on 5 July 1973, in the grade of airman with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, under the provisions AFM 39-12 (for the good of the service). After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.