RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02603
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was coerced in agreeing to this type of discharge. He was also told
that it would be upgraded in 7 years after discharge.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal letter.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 October 1951 for a
term of four years. He was discharged from the Air Force on 30 July 1957
under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (unfitness) and received an under other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He served 5 years, 3 months
and 3 days total active service.
The applicant received a Summary Court-Martial for a breach of the peace by
wrongfully engaging in a fight on 31 March 1956, which led to the
applicant's demotion to airman basic, confinement with hard labor for 30
days, and a $60 fine. The applicant then received a Special Court-Martial
for wrongful possession of and with the intent to deceive, a military pass
on 13 July 1956 and broke restriction on 13 July 1956, which led to
confinement with hard labor for 3 months and $210 fine. He received an
Article 15 for failure to repair to duty at the time prescribed on 8 August
1956 and received 14 days restriction. He received another Article 15 for
failure to report for duty on 17 July 1957 and was demoted to airman
basic. He had 100 days of lost time during two military confinement
periods.
On 15 April 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. Based upon the documentation in the file,
DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the
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. Accordingly, DPPRS recommends his records remain
the same. He has not filed a timely request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that he believes
the additional evidence to support his request for a record change should
be the fact that he was not given due process of law. He was lied to as to
the punishment he was to receive from a summary court-martial. He could
have supplied witnesses that would have sworn that he was a victim and not
a participant in the fight in question. Had he not been lied to and
shafted to "set an example" he would not have rebelled against the Air
Force.
He was one person setup by 4 or 5 Blacks and was trying to defend himself
and for that he was court-martialed. What happen to the Blacks involved?
He requested a general court-martial instead of a summary and his request
was denied.
Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to
honorable. We find no impropriety in the characterization of the
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 the
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. The only other basis upon which to upgrade this
discharge would be based on clemency. However, the applicant failed to
provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities. Should he
provide documentary evidence pertaining to his post-service activities, we
would be willing to reconsider his appeal. In the absence of such
evidence, favorable action is not recommended.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 02-02603 in
Executive Session on 20 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s response, dated 23 Sep 02
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the former member’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request to upgrade her late husband’s discharge be denied. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPTR states, in part, that there is...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02031 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The Board also invited the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. In a letter, dated 15 April 2002, the applicant states that he has no excuse for the way he acted...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01143
He further acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under conditions other than honorable and receive an undesirable discharge that could deprive him of any rights to receive veterans’ benefits in the future. On 30 August 1957, the base and wing commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an undesirable discharge. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 9 September 1957 and ordered an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00398
He was released from the stockade and brought before a Summary Court- Martial Board and discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 7 March 1958, the evaluation officer recommended the applicant be discharged for unsuitability for military duty and lack of value to the AF with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The evaluation officer further indicated the applicant’s service had not been such as to warrant discharge under other than honorable conditions.
He recommended that applicant be discharged from the service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is now retired and a member of the American Legion. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
The applicant was discharged on 3 April 1957 with an UOTHC discharge. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 3 April 1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01032
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01032 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00992 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETTION DATE AUGUST 5, 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable; his special court-martial conviction be overturned and removed from his personal records; his narrative reason...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03867
He was never given a physical prior to his discharge from the Air Force. He had served 2 years, 7 months and 13 days on active duty. Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation from the Air Force indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service, retention or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental defects which would have warranted consideration in the Disability Evaluation System.
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.