RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01495
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
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 (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant
while serving in the grade of sergeant, was discharged from the Air
Force on 5 September 1975, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Request
For Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial and received an under
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He previously
received an honorable discharge and was on his second tour. He served
4 years, 11 months, and 25 days total active service.
The applicant was AWOL several times during his enlistment. The
member was charged with a violation of Article 86, UCMJ, Fail to
repair on 15 February 1974 and 19 February 1974. He was found guilty
and his sentence, forfeiture of $25.00 per month for two months, was
approved and ordered executed on 22 March 1974. He was also AWOL from
8-9 February 1975. He reported to the USAF hospital at 1420 hours on
9 February with a superficial gunshot wound of the abdomen. On 12
March 1975, a formal line-of-duty investigation summarized that the
member fell on his .22 caliber pistol when walking up a small hill
returning to his home from target practice. The investigation also
established that the injury occurred while he was absent without leave
from his assigned organization. The member was placed on AWOL status
again on 31 March 1975. His status was changed to Desertion from 30
April to 7 July 1975. The member voluntarily returned to duty on 8
July 1975. There is no other documentation about the member’s
discharge in his records.
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. He provided
no other facts to support his claim of PTSD evaluation prior to
November 01, 26 years from his discharge. He has not filed a timely
request.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 14 June 2002, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (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 an error or an injustice. 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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-
01495 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 20 May 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 June 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 June 2002.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03432
DPPRS states that the applicant’s request is not timely and that the applicant did not provide any new evidence nor identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge action. (Exhibit C) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant claims that his records have been “…messed with.”; that his mistakes with alcohol were minor when compared to the mistakes of “…some of our country’s leaders.”; and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00838
He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: reduction in grade from airman first class to airman and ordered to forfeit $100.00 per month for two months, but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to airman was suspended until 1 August 1974, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03252
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not provide any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As of this date, this office has not received a response. 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 our...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01966
On 15 October 1984, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that the applicant was provided full due process. However, after thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility are supported by the evidence of record. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03639
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02231
e. On 18 March 1968, the 14th Combat Support Group notified Chanute AFB that the applicant arrived at their station on 1 March 1968 and was present for duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records defers to the Board to determine if the requested relief should be granted. Nevertheless, after 38 years, and in view of the negative FBI report and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00277
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Furthermore, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01267
The board recommend that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-17 and he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate. On 19 November 1951, the discharge authority reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Board of Officers, and approved the discharge recommendation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00269
Although the applicant contends the accusations of homosexuality were never substantiated, he rendered a sworn statement to the OSI, admitting to homosexual relations with Air Force personnel. Furthermore, the regulation in effect at that time required that a member be issued an undesirable discharge. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 8 Jun 06.