Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201559
Original file (0201559.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01559
      INDEX CODE:  110.02

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 18 years old when he joined and had never been away  from  home,  but
he wanted to serve his country.  He got married;  however,  his  wife  would
not move to Arizona.  Upon his reassignment to Turkey, he  received  divorce
papers.

He married again and has been married for 35 years with 2 grown children.

He had no way to send money to his second wife so he changed the address  on
the check going to his first wife, that is when the investigation started.

He read that he could apply for a less than  honorable  discharge  and  did.
He regrets it to this day but he has lived  a  good  life,  trying  to  help
others, joining many organizations, and even adopting a young girl.   He  is
an elder in his church and teaches Sunday school and prayer meetings.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The available records reflect the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 18 August 1964 in the grade of airman basic, for a period  of  four
years.  His grade at the time of discharge was airman first class,  with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 June 1966.

The record contains three Performance Reports,  reflecting  overall  ratings
of (oldest to latest): highest 50%; lowest 50%; and highest 30%.

The specific facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are  unknown
inasmuch as the discharge correspondence is not available.

On 16 May 68, he was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12,  with  an
under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He  was  credited  with  3
years, 8 months and 29 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 2  July  2002,  that,  on  the  basis  of  data
furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and found that based on the lack  of
documentation,  they  believe  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  noted  the  applicant  did  not  identify  any
specific errors in his discharge processing.  However, since  the  discharge
occurred over 34 years ago, the type of offense  and  the  member’s  actions
since that time, they recommend clemency.  Additionally, if the  FBI  report
proves negative, the applicant’s  discharge  should  be  upgraded  to  under
honorable conditions (general).

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a personal statement and a letter of character  reference
in response to the Air Force evaluation (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice warranting upgrading  of  his  discharge  to
general (under honorable conditions).  We note that  the  facts  surrounding
the circumstances of the applicant’s discharge are not available.   However,
based upon the presumption of regularity  in  the  conduct  of  governmental
affairs and without evidence to  the  contrary,  we  must  assume  that  the
applicant's  discharge  was  proper  and  in  compliance  with   appropriate
directives.  Nevertheless, the applicant has had to live  with  the  adverse
effects of his under other than honorable conditions discharge for  over  34
years, and while the discharge may have been appropriate  at  the  time,  we
believe it would be an injustice for him to  continue  to  suffer  from  its
effects.  Based on the evidence presented, and in view of the  negative  FBI
report, it appears that the applicant has been  a  responsible  citizen  and
productive member of society since his separation.  We therefore agree  with
the recommendation of the Air Force that the  applicant’s  discharge  should
be upgraded  to  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  on  the  basis  of
clemency.  We considered applicant’s request  for  an  honorable  discharge;
however,  in  the  absence  of  information  regarding  the  specific  facts
surrounding the discharge, we are not persuaded that a  further  upgrade  of
the discharge to fully honorable is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 16 May 1968,  he  was  discharged
with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  02-01559
in Executive Session on 13 November 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 02, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jun 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Sep 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                   EDWARD H. PARKER
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR 02-01559




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 116), it is directed
that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 May 1968, he was
discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions).







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01908

    Original file (BC-2007-01908.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was 19 years old and had served honorably throughout his active duty time. On 31 December 1970, he failed to report for duty as scheduled. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 June 2007, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101396

    Original file (0101396.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, considering the discharge occurred over 44 years ago and his remarks about his young age, DPPRS recommends clemency. If a check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation files proves negative, DPPRS recommends the discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge (Exhibit C). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100846

    Original file (0100846.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00846 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Undesirable Discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge. He has been sober for twenty-five years. Applicant’s request for an honorable discharge was considered but based on the overall records, a further upgrade...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003232

    Original file (0003232.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The available 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. Based on the activities reflected in the FBI report, we also find no compelling reason to warrant upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. FBI Report.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100207

    Original file (0100207.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00207 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable (general) conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01040

    Original file (BC-2004-01040.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They recommended applicant be separated from the Air Force and issued an undesirable discharge. (2) Applicant sought help from the Air Force drug rehabilitation program before he went AWOL, but the attempt failed. The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01556

    Original file (BC-2006-01556.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 8 Jan 71, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01556 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201284

    Original file (0201284.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Oct 61, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-18, Special Court-Martial Order # 102, and HQ HQLMTC/JA letter with a bad conduct discharge. At that time, the applicant was again invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jul 02, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02234

    Original file (BC-2004-02234.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of the application, the applicant submits a statement from the former member’s daughter, an Air Force Discharge Review Board application, a Certification of Military Service, an Honorable Discharge Certificate (AF Reserves), a medical prognosis, letter from National Personnel Records Center, and a general power of attorney. Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing, nor provide facts that support upgrading the discharge to honorable....

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803511

    Original file (9803511.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.