RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00277
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In the year 1952, he made the mistake of associating with fellow
servicemen who were bad company. He was with them during the
commission of a crime. He loves his country and flies a flag daily on
his property, his home. His discharge has bothered him for years --
he is now 71.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a character reference and
DD Form 293.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1950. Prior to
the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of
airman third class (E-3) on 1 April 1952. He received character and
efficiency ratings of “excellent” on 12 February 1950, 8 November
1950, 19 June 1951, and 4 December 1951 On 8 October 1952, his
character was rated as “poor” and his efficiency was rated
“unsatisfactory.”
The applicant was convicted by the Superior Court of the State of
California on 11 July 1952 for grand theft, auto. He pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to probation for 3 years for committing a felony.
On 8 October 1952, his commander recommended he be discharged with an
undesirable discharge. Prior to discharge, the applicant was
interviewed by his section head and squadron commander. They stated
he was an unsatisfactory airman in all respects. They further stated
since his civil court conviction, his attitude towards his work and
responsibilities was intolerable. His work had deteriorated to a
point it was necessary to relieve him of his duties. Probation and
rehabilitation were not recommended. The Discharge Authority approved
the discharge and he was discharged with an undesirable discharge
under the provisions of AFR 39-22. He had served 2 years and 2 months
on active duty. Time lost was 23 days due to civil confinement.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report that is
attached at Exhibit C. The information contained in the report
pertains solely to the conviction which led to the applicant’s
separation.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority. Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Evidence has not been provided
which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation under which it
was effected. We have noted the statements provided by the
applicant’s son-in-law in support of his appeal. While these
statements allude to a successful post-service adjustment by the
applicant, without more expansive evidence of good citizenship
subsequent to his separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency
in this case. Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be
willing to reconsider his request for recharacterization of his
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Letter of Support, dated 20 Mar 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Feb 03.
EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00762
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02048
The applicant received one character and efficiency rating of “excellent,” dated 14 January 1952. 457522F), which is at Exhibit F. On 9 August 1955, the applicant submitted a similar application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00217
Upon review and personal interview, the evaluation officer concurred with the commander and recommended a general discharge. The Discharge Authority approved the discharge on 6 August 1971 and ordered a general discharge without P&R. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the copy of the letter indicated “applicant declined to submit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03363
The commander also recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge. On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03100
Applicant's submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 8 November 1954 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. Second, he went AWOL one time for 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00596
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00596 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. His sentence consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1), 30 days of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $30. On 8 Sep 59, the Air Force Discharge...
Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02144
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02144 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2006 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There was no discharge case file in the applicant’s military personnel records. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR...
On 19 June 1953, he was discharged from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. 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: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant had two previous summary courts- martial for being...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01066
On 20 March 1981, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting the award of the Air Force Overseas (Long and Short) Tour Ribbons, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Combat Readiness Medal, and Armed Forces Service Medal. We took notice of the...