Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201856
Original file (0201856.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01856
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that the initial cause of his problems in the service stemmed from
the mistreatment he received from his training officer.   He  had  numerous
physical problems that interfered with the physical  requirements  required
of basic training.  His training officer used him as an example and created
for him an extremely hostile environment that led him  to  commit  numerous
Absences Without Leave (AWOLs).  Since his experience in the service he has
led an exemplary life.  He has been happily married for 32  years  and  has
been a contributor to his church and  community.   He  has  owned  his  own
business and has been extremely successful.

His actions of today show that he has become a contributing member  of  his
church and community.  He feels that the problems he experienced in the Air
Force were not of his own doing and are not indicative of who he really is.
 He did not realize that he only  had  15  years  to  try  to  upgrade  his
discharge.  He has been diagnosed  with  lung  cancer  and  would  like  to
correct the one truly  bad  thing  that  has  occurred  in  his  life,  the
discharge he received from the Air Force.  He feels he has lived a good and
giving life and would like any question of his military service be  put  to
rest.  He requests that the Air Force look at what he has become, a  pillar
of his community, and grant him his request to have his discharge  upgraded
to honorable.

In support of his request,  he  submits  a  personal  statement,  character
references, a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his discharge physical.


The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 February 1952, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of private (E-1) at the age of 17 with parental consent for a  period
of 4 years.

From 25 July 1952 to 13 August 1952, he was  charged  with  Absent  Without
Leave (AWOL).  For this incident, tried and convicted by a  summary  court-
martial.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor for forty-five  (45)  days
and to forfeit fifty-five dollars ($55) of his pay.

From 6 September 1952 to 10 September 1952, he was charged with AWOL.   For
this incident, he was tried and convicted by a summary  court-martial.   He
was ordered to perform hard labor for 15 days and to forfeit twenty dollars
($20) of his pay.

From 20 September 1952 to 9 October 1952, he was charged  with  AWOL.   For
this incident, he was tried and convicted by a summary  court-martial.   He
was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for  thirty  (30)  days  and  to
forfeit fifty dollars ($50) of his pay.

On 25 April 1968, the applicant was tried by a  special  court-martial  for
violation of Article 86, Absent Without Leave (AWOL), from 29 December 1952
until 20 January 1953 and 23 January 1953 until 31 January 1953.   He  pled
not guilty, was found guilty and was sentenced to be discharged with a  bad
conduct discharge, to be confined for three months, and to  forfeit  fifty-
five ($55) dollars for three months.

The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on  1 June  1953.
He had served 7 months and 22 days on active duty.  He had  225  days  lost
time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 28 May 1954, the Air Force Discharge Review Board  reviewed  and  denied
applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  FBI  provided  a  copy   of   an
Investigative Report, No. 601666B, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS
further states that the applicant has not  provided  any  new  evidence  or
identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 July 2002, a letter was forwarded to applicant  suggesting  that  the
applicant  consider  providing  evidence  pertaining  to  his  post-service
activities.  On 6 August 2002, the Division of Veterans’ Affairs, State  of
New York, requested clemency be given to the  applicant  who  has  suffered
long enough for a mistake he made  as  a  young  man.   This  letter,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit F.

On 18 July 2002, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded  to  the  applicant
for review and comment.  Applicant’s spouse responded by stating that  they
were aware of the charges and that he has been forgiven.  Her husband is  a
great man and was a troubled youngster who most likely  got  involved  with
the wrong crowd (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   It  appears  that  under  the   given
circumstances  at  that  time,  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards in effecting his discharge action.   Applicant’s  contentions  and
supporting statements were duly noted. However, based on  the  short  period
of time he served on active duty, the excessive amount of time lost  to  the
government and  the  limited  evidence  provided,  in  our  estimation,  the
evidence submitted is not of a sufficient quality and  quantity  to  warrant
the approval of the requested relief.  In addition, an FBI  record  provided
information pertaining to the  applicant  indicating  involvement  with  law
enforcement authorities for approximately 35  years  after  his  separation,
the most recent occurring approximately 13 years ago.  In view of this  fact
and in the absence of more expansive evidence by the applicant attesting  to
a  successful  post-service  adjustment  in  the  years   after   his   last
involvement with civil law enforcement authorities, we are not  inclined  to
extend clemency in this case.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 in Executive
Session on 16 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr, Panel Chair
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2002 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 June 2002.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 June 2002.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, FBI Report, dated 31 July 2002.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 July 2002.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Spouse, dated 11 August 2002.





                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201479

    Original file (0201479.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this incident, he was ordered to be restricted to the limits of his squadron area for a period of sixty (60) days and to forfeit fifty dollars ($50) of his pay. On 19 November 1954, 3 August 1955 and 23 June 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade. On 12 July 2002, a letter from Congressman Markey’s office requesting assistance in upgrading applicant’s discharge was received by this office (Exhibit G).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101746

    Original file (0101746.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00909

    Original file (BC-2004-00909.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00909 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to allow him to receive VA benefits. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01447

    Original file (BC-2004-01447.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 October 1951, the applicant was tried and convicted by a special court-martial for failing to obey a lawful order. For this incident he was confined at hard labor for four (4) months, and forfeited $50.00 per month for a like period. In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit D).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01770

    Original file (BC-2002-01770.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ---, 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255

    Original file (BC-2004-01255.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03458

    Original file (BC-2002-03458.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00762

    Original file (BC-2005-00762.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02357

    Original file (BC-2004-02357.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02357 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. He received 14 days’ restriction. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01465

    Original file (BC-2004-01465.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ...