Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02717
Original file (BC-2002-02717.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02717
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12  September  1955
for a period of 4 years.

In September 1957, applicant was convicted by a civil court for theft.
 He was sentenced to 2 years’ confinement,  which  was  reduced  to  2
years of supervised probation.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  was
discharged from the Air Force on 19 September 1957.  He was  separated
under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (misconduct, civil court conviction)
with an Undesirable discharge.  He served 1 year,  10  months  and  24
days on active duty.  He had 41 days of lost time.

Other 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the dicharge directives
in effect at the time of  his  discharge.   The  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board denied his request for an upgrade on     28 October 1958.
 Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.  A  complete
copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 September 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 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  error  or  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 Staff
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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this  application  on  5
November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:



                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Sep 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Sep 02.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202717

    Original file (0202717.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 September 1955 for a period of 4 years. Other 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. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade on 28 October 1958.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02895

    Original file (BC-2002-02895.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant has also requested that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. After reviewing applicant’s overall record of service and based on the fact that under today’s standards he would receive an honorable discharge, we recommend approval of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Show that on 26 April 1957, he was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02855

    Original file (BC-2002-02855.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02855 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 10 Sep 57, the discharge authority approved the Discharge for Unfitness. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00837

    Original file (BC-2005-00837.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional evidence as to why the character of his discharge should be upgraded. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam and served eight months in Vietnam before the first AWOL. It has been 24 years since he was discharged.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00649

    Original file (BC-2005-00649.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00649 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 AUGUST 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The recommendation for discharge was based on the...

  • 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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03017a

    Original file (BC-2002-03017a.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He had completed a total of 3 years and 11 days (not including 122 days of lost time), and was serving in the grade of Airman 2nd Class (E-3) when discharged. He is truly sorry for his actions while in the Air Force and states that he thinks about his undesirable discharge every day. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03017

    Original file (BC-2002-03017.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He had completed a total of 3 years and 11 days (not including 122 days of lost time), and was serving in the grade of Airman 2nd Class (E-3) when discharged. He is truly sorry for his actions while in the Air Force and states that he thinks about his undesirable discharge every day. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01750

    Original file (BC-2002-01750.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the RE Code assigned at the time of the applicant’s separation was contrary to the governing regulation or unjust. At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for applicant’s separation and the corresponding RE code assigned in his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02114

    Original file (BC-2005-02114.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Aug 05 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 05. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.