RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02160
COUNSEL: NONE
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He wishes to have his general discharge upgraded to an honorable as he
really did not deserve a general. He admits he was AWOL when his
first child was born.
He did prepare for the occasion by having a leave in place. All he
had to do was call from where he was. When the day came, he was
refused leave.
In support of his application, he submits a copy of DD Form 214 and a
copy of DD Form 256 AF.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
26 October 1971. The commander recommended the applicant be
discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (resignation for the good
of the service) with service characterized general (under honorable
conditions) on 1 November 1973 in the grade of airman first class. He
served 1 year, 11 months and 10 days of total active military service.
On 18 September 1973, the applicant was convicted by Court-Martial for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 July to 6 August 1973 and
failure to obey a lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer.
He also had an Article 15 for being AWOL from 24 October to 26 October
1972. The records indicate he was counseled and reprimanded on
numerous occasions by his commander for minor incidents. On 24
September 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, member requested
a discharge for the good of the service. The group and wing
commanders recommended acceptance of the resignation with an
undesirable characterization. The case was reviewed by the Staff
Judge Advocate (SJA) who found it legally sufficient to support the
discharge. The SJA recommended an undesirable discharge. The
Discharge Authority approved the discharge on 25 October 1973 and
ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based upon documentation
in file, 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. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the
discharge. Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same
and his request be denied.
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 25 July 2003, for review and comment within 30 days. 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that the findings of the Administrative Discharge Board should be set
aside and his discharge upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. We therefore concur with the
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-
02160 in Executive Session on 3 September 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jul 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
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.
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 | 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-2003-01482
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-2003-01204
Also USPS says that they have no record of his military time. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS deferred to the Board to determine if the applicant should be granted relief based on limited supporting documentation in his record. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01676
While this may be used as a basis for discharge, it cannot be considered for characterization of the discharge. On 23 March 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
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-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 | CY2003 | BC-2001-02983
On 20 December 1977, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for failure to go on 17 December 1977. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 24 January 1978 and ordered an UOTHC characterization without P&R. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair Mr. David W....
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02017
She provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of her discharge to general. Other than her own uncorroborated assertions, evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the action taken to affect her discharge from the Air Force was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at...