RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01010
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He desires his discharge to be upgraded.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from his niece
and other documentation.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 July 1952 for a period of
four (4) years.
On 2 August 1954, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
initiate discharge action against him for unfitness. The commander
indicated that the reason for the recommended action was evidence of habits
or traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends. He was
also a habitual shirker. The commander further indicated that applicant’s
duties had been as Food Service Attendant, Ration Breakdown, and duties as
Squadron Detail Man. He had been counseled repeatedly by various
commissioned and non-commissioned officers in efforts to train him to be a
satisfactory airman. However, all such efforts had not effectuated the
rehabilitation of applicant.
The commander also indicated that the applicant had been tried by two (2)
Summary Court-Martials and had received four (4) Article 15 non-judicial
punishments; however, the record only reflects the following:
On 25 April 1953, at 1045 hours, you failed to repair to duty in
Dining Hall #4, Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and
remained absent until 1730 hours 26 April 1953. The following punishment
was imposed: demotion to the grade of airman basic.
On 2 May 1954, at Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles,
Louisiana, without proper authority you failed to repair for duty at Dining
Hall Number 4, 806th Food Service Squadron. The following punishment was
imposed: demotion to the grade of airman basic.
Charge/Specification: You did on or about 8 May 1954, without proper
authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: 806th Food Service
Squadron, 806th Air Base Group, located at Lake Charles Air Force Base,
Lake Charles, Louisiana, and did remain so absent until on or about 16 May
1954.
Findings: He was found guilty and sentenced to the following: To be
restricted to the limits of Lake Charles Air Force Base for a period of
thirty (30) days and a forfeiture of $35.00.
Charge/Specification: On or about 21 June 1954 without proper
authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.
Findings: He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for twenty-one (21) days and a forfeiture of $55.00.
The records also reflects:
On 28-30 April 1953 the applicant was in civil confinement.
On 2 March 1954 the applicant failed to repair to duty, and remained
absent until 28 March 1954.
On 19 July 1954 the applicant failed to repair to duty, and remained
absent until 23 July 1954.
On 2 August 1954 the applicant submitted an application for discharge.
On 2 August 1954, after consulting counsel, applicant waived his right to
appear before an AFR 39-17 Board and requested discharge without benefit of
board proceedings.
Applicant was discharged on 3 September 1954, in the grade of airman basic,
under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfit) with an undesirable discharge.
He served 1 year, 11 months, and 4 days total active duty with 74 days lost
time.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated that on the basis of the data
furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of
his discharge.
The evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s niece reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that
is 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. 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 he was 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 and the events which precipitated
the discharge. 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 02-01010
in Executive Session on 6 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 April 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 April 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 2002.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 2002.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
On 23 March 1955, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for the following reasons: On 1 October 1952, the applicant received a summary court-martial for failure to repair and was demoted to airman basic, received 45 days’ restriction and was fined $50. On 22 June 1955, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 19 March...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03458
A special court-martial was convened on 4 June 1954 in Wilmington to address the applicant’s two outstanding AWOL charges, 1 December through 12 March 1954 and 23 through 29 March 1954, where the applicant was found guilty and consequently sentenced to confinement with hard labor for six months and fined $34 per month for six months. The sentence was disapproved and the charges dismissed as the HQ Eastern Defense Force commander found that the applicant had, in fact, been discharged from...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01465
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01465 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 October 1953, the discharge authority approved the separation recommended by the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03260
Charge IV/Specification 1: Applicant, having received a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer, to be restricted to barracks 700, did, at Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, on or about 7 June 1973, willfully disobey the same. On 6 June 1973, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court- martial and stated he understood he could receive an undesirable discharge. On 15 June 1973, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge...
On 19 February 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness), with an undesirable discharge. We note that the applicant provided some character references pertaining to his post-service activities; however, the Board does not believe this evidence is sufficient to warrant clemency. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 December 2001, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00282
The commander advised applicant that military counsel had been obtained to assist him and a record of the consultation will be made by military counsel and placed in the case file The commander stated in the recommendation for discharge that he was recommending the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends the request for the PH be denied. After thoroughly...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03189
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 November 1952 for a period of four (4) years in the grade of airman third class. Applicant was discharged on 13 November 1953, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-21 (Fraudulent Entry Into the Air Force). However, today a fraudulent entry would receive an honorable discharge and considering the discharge occurred 50 years ago and the type of offense leading...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03395
He indicated since he had been in the Air Force he had a weight problem. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are convinced the applicant’s separation from the Air Force was in accordance with Air Force policy. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03148
He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03148
He received a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Discharge of Airmen During Their First Enlistment - Unsuitability). DPPRS notes also that the applicant provided no evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred during discharge processing, nor did the applicant provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Nov 02.