RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00450
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He makes no contentions.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered into the Air Force on 28 May 1962. On 17 May
1965, the applicant was notified by his commander, that he was
recommending he be discharged, under the provisions of AFR 39-17, for
unfitness. The basis for the action was a 6 Mar 1964 general court
martial, in which he was found guilty of forging a signature on a
check. He was reduced to E-1, confined at hard labor for six months
and forfeiture of $28 per month for six months. A 12 March 1965
Special court-martial found the applicant guilty of wrongfully
appropriating a tape recorder. He was sentenced to confinement at
hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $30 per month for six
months. He also had two letters of indebtedness on 1 April 1965.
Applicant waived his rights to appear before a Board of Officers, to
counsel and to submit statements.
The applicant’s DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Armed Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge is dated 8
September 1965 reflects a UOTHC. He served two years, four months
and ten days on active duty.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied applicant’s request for an
upgrade of his discharge on 9 July 1981.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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.
In accordance with AFM 35-5 (Separation Processing), Table 13, Item
3a, (dated 25 Jan 65) there was no “Undesirable” character of service
authorized. Therefore, his characterization of service is correct
(Under Conditions Other That Honorable). See DD Dorm 215, Correction
to DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer
or Discharge, dated 8 September 1965.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
10 Jun 03, for review and comment 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 an error or injustice to warrant changing his UOTHC
discharge to honorable. We find no impropriety in the
characterization of 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 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.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have
considered applicant's overall quality of service and the events which
precipitated the discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we
cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Applicant has not
provided sufficient information of post-service activities and
accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the
behavioral traits, which caused the discharge. Should applicant
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting
to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of
successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider
this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2003-
00450 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jun 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01621
The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 January 1985. 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 applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00959
The person told him that he would be able to reenlist as his discharge was a General discharge. On 26 June 2002, applicant was notified that he was being discharged under the auspices of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, for unsatisfactory duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions of an increase in maturity, in and of itself, sufficiently...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00446
The discharge authority approved the request for discharge (in lieu of court- martial) and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 22 August 1984. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00338
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 11 July 1985 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities) with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 April 2003, a copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00251
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He hurt his leg during his first year of service and during the next 3 years of rehabilitation he was bounced around from commander to commander thereby hindering any opportunity to complete his initial training. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case file and recommended denial. Exhibit D. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00624
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was trying to find a way to get out of the service to spend time with his grandfather and mother after his grandmother died. The First Sergeant assured the applicant that he would be honorably discharged. The applicant was notified on 12 August 1994 that he was being recommended for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01673
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01387
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 30 March 1956 under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s upgrade request to reenlist on 20 March 1959. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00047
On 31 July 1995, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02603
Upon review of the applicant’s record, it appears that he did not follow-up with a new oath for commission, and at this time does not possess a Regular or Reserve commission. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant tendered his resignation from the Regular Air Force and requested a Reserve commission. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...