RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00588
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Legal counsel did not represent him because he couldn’t afford one;
therefore, he represented himself. In 1962, Attorney General Robert
Kennedy ruled that anyone sentenced without an attorney was sentenced
illegally. Since he had no valid attorney, his discharge was illegal.
In support of his application, he provided a personal statement and copies
of his DD Forms 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States. A copy of the applicant’s complete submission with
attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The majority of the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed and efforts
at reconstruction have been unsuccessful. The following information was
extracted from the applicant’s separation document.
The applicant entered active military service on 15 July 1953. While
serving in the grade of staff sergeant, he was separated from the Air Force
on 9 March 1956 under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (conviction by civil
court). Facts and circumstances of his discharge are not in his records.
He was separated with an undesirable discharge. The applicant had served
two years, three months, and thirteen days on active duty. His time lost
was 132 days.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to
the applicant, which is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states that based on the DD Form 214,
they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time and was
within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not
submit any evidence to support any errors or injustices that occurred in
the discharge processing. Additionally, the applicant provided no facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. The DPPRS evaluation
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report were forwarded to
the applicant on 21 March 2003 and 21 April 2003 for review and comment
(Exhibits D and G).
In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant states that he
regrets his actions and would like an opportunity to prove himself to his
Country. He reiterated his assertion that Robert Kennedy ruled anyone
sentenced without an attorney had to be turned loose. The applicant’s
rebuttal is at Exhibit H.
With respect to his FBI report, the applicant submitted two statements
requesting a 30-day extension to find the guilty parties (Exhibit J). His
request was approved on 22 May 2003 (Exhibit K). As of this date, this
office has received no response.
The applicant was given the opportunity to submit comments about his post
service activities (see Exhibit E). His reply is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. The applicant did not provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders
abused their discretionary authority. The characterization of discharge
which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately
reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust. In view of the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant attesting to a
successful post-service adjustment in the years since his separation, we
are not inclined to extend clemency in this case. Therefore, we conclude
that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his
request that it be changed.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 9 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket No. BC-2003-00588 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 03, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Apr 03.
Exhibit F. FBI Record MD0SI0100, dated 8 Apr 03.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 7 May 03.
Exhibit I. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 20 Apr 03.
Exhibit J. Applicant’s Extension Request, dated 27 Apr 03.
Exhibit K. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 May 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02153
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. 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...
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-2002-04056
On 26 November 1956, the discharge authority approved the discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge effective 5 December 1956. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation and the FBI report were forwarded to the applicant on 7 March 2003 and 3 April 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D and F). In our opinion, the cited statements are not of a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01482
He received an honorable discharge on May 20, 1957 in order to reenlist in the Air Force at which time he corrected his date of birth. He was discharged as an A/2c and was told that he would receive a general discharge. Based on documentation provided by the applicant, he was discharged on 29 May 1958 with an undesirable discharge.
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-2003-00148
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.
The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable 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: On 15 Feb 01, the Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the applicant did not provide evidence of errors...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02035
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that due to the lack of documentation to support the applicant’s discharge process, his young age at the time, and considering the incident occurred over 45 years ago, they would not be opposed to the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02105
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02105 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 13 August 1954, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him to appear before a Board of Officers. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00277
His discharge has bothered him for years -- he is now 71. They further stated since his civil court conviction, his attitude towards his work and responsibilities was intolerable. Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request for recharacterization of his discharge.