RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02153
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His offenses were considerably minor for such a harsh punishment.
In his declining years he would like to look back on his military
history with pride.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form
214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United
States, dated 13 Jun 56, and letters of character reference from an
employee and his certified public accountant.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served
honorably in the Air National Guard from 6 Jun 54 until his
discharge on 10 Jan 55.
On 12 Jan 55, he enlisted in the Air Force for a period of four
years in the grade of airman basic. He was promoted to the grade
of airman third class with an effective date and date of rank of
5 Apr 55. Applicant received character and efficiency ratings of
excellent from 30 Mar 55 – 10 Sep 55.
On 1 Jun 56, applicant was tried and convicted in a civil court on
charges of burglary. He pled guilty and was sentenced to serve
3 years in a state penitentiary; however, his sentence was changed
to probation for 3 years.
The specific facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are
unknown inasmuch as the discharge correspondence is not available.
On 13 Jun 56, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-22,
by reason of conviction by civil court and was issued an
undesirable discharge certificate. He was credited with 1 year, 5
months, and 2 days of active duty service during this period.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s file, they
found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at
the time of his discharge. Additionally, the discharge was within
the sound discretion of the discharge authority. They also noted
that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor
did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.
The complete Air Force 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 22 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
On 17 Oct 03, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for comment. At that time, the applicant was also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the service (Exhibit F). 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 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.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no
basis upon which to favorably consider 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2002-02153 in Executive Session on 5 November 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Aug 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02427
On 3 Jun 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to general or honorable. On 30 Aug 82, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board (see Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the evaluation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655
On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.
The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand. The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand. Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 0202418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded so he can be buried in a national cemetery. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's sister...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02565
On 21 Dec 72, the evaluation officer found that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge based on his history of violations of military and civilian law. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00148
On 18 October 1957, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He had served 2 years and 24 days on active duty. Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
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-2004-00866
On 8 Aug 56, the squadron commander initiated discharge action, with a general characterization, against the applicant based on his regression of performance. On 28 Jan 65, the applicant filed an appeal for an upgraded discharge with the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00361
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). The majority of the Board finds no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, they do not believe the applicant has suffered an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.