Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01925
Original file (BC-2003-01925.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01925
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His general discharge should be  changed  to  an  honorable  discharge
because the USAF should have never accepted him because he was a minor
when he enlisted.  He was not of legal age when he enlisted.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States  Report  of
Transfer or Discharge, a copy of his DD Form  215,  Correction  to  DD
Form 214, and a copy of his discharge document.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on  17  October  1963  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.  Prior  to  the  events
under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-3)
on 12 December 1963.  He received two Airman Performance  Reports  for
the periods ending 16 October 1964 and 13 March  1965,  in  which  the
overall   evaluations   were    “marginal”    and    “unsatisfactory,”
respectively.

On 1 February 1965, the  commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he
recommended a  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  inaptitude.   He
recommended an honorable discharge.  Basis for the discharge was  that
the applicant had been counseled numerous times because he  is  unable
to adjust to military life, unresponsive to counseling, and could  not
absorb and retain instructions and training.  On 29 December 1964,  he
received nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15  for  failure  to
repair; and was restricted to base for 30 days.  On 1 October 1964, he
was tried and  convicted  by  a  Summary  Court-Martial  for  careless
discharge of a weapon.  He was reduced to airman  basic,  forfeit  $50
and restricted to base for 30 days.  He  was  placed  on  the  control
roster for a referral performance report for  the  period  17  October
1953 to 16 October 1964.   He  was  counseled  on  his  unsatisfactory
appearance and his lack of  initiative  to  perform  his  duties.   He
failed to demonstrate sufficient drive and ambition to progress in his
military career.  An evaluating officer was appointed.  He interviewed
the applicant and detailed the reasons for his  recommended  discharge
and to the characterization applicant could expect  to  receive.   The
applicant  did  not  offer  a  rebuttal.    The   evaluating   officer
recommended a general discharge after considering all  the  facts  and
circumstances.  The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case  and  found
it legally sufficient to support discharge.  The  Discharge  Authority
approved and ordered a general discharge on 6 April 1965.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  was
discharged from the Air Force on 21 April 1965 under the provisions of
AFR 39-16 (attrition, inaptitude  or  unsuitability)  and  received  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served  one  year,
six months and five days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

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 separation 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 C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he would like to thank you all for reminding him
of his imperfections.  He wants to know if you can please  advise  him
of where you all got your perfections from, he would like to have some
of it.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________




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  presented
which would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge was erroneous
or unjust.  The reasons discharge proceedings were  initiated  against
the applicant are well documented in the record.  If the applicant can
provide any new evidence showing the information in his discharge case
file is erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or  that
his commanders abused their discretionary authority, the  Board  would
be willing  to  reconsider  his  request.   In  the  absence  of  such
evidence, we have  no  basis  on  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  this  application,  BC-
2003-01925,  in  Executive  Session  on  28  August  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 May 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jul 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s response, w/atchs.



                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02222

    Original file (BC-2002-02222.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02222 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. After a thorough review of the evidence of record we see no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge was erroneous...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01765

    Original file (BC-2003-01765.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01765 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his enlistment into the armed forces. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02851

    Original file (BC-2003-02851.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal services reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The Discharge Authority concurred with the recommendations and ordered a general discharge without P&R on 30 January 1986. The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 3 February 1986 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - drug abuse) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01753

    Original file (BC-2003-01753.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01753 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected by changing the description of his misconduct from “a user or abuser of illegal drugs” to “a conspirator in the purchase/sale/use of an illegal drug.” His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03515

    Original file (BC-2002-03515.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03515 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his Temporary Duties (TDYs) to Pope AFB and Travis AFB during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his TDY to Vietnam from Hickam AFB in 1963. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00028

    Original file (BC-2004-00028.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 January 1964, he appeared before a board of officers and the findings and recommendation was to separate him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. The base legal services reviewed the report from the board of officers and found it legally sufficient to support the findings and recommendation to discharge him with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. On 8 April 1964, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01907

    Original file (BC-2003-01907.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02214

    Original file (BC-2003-02214.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 May 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE Code and reason and authority for discharge be changed. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He will always have a mark against him as long as his records remain unchanged. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02643

    Original file (BC-2004-02643.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 April 1964 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (personality and behavior disorder), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 October 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02447

    Original file (BC-2003-02447.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was subsequently discharged from the AF with an entry-level separation and service characterization of uncharacterized, as he had not served for 180 days at the time of discharge. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge. Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.