RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03190
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge should be upgraded because he was not guilty of the charges
against him.
Upon the advice of his counsel, he agreed to the discharge with the
understanding the charges would later be dropped and he would receive an
honorable discharge; however, this never occurred. In addition, he chose
to accept the discharge, rather than make the small girls appear before the
hearing. He simply wants his name cleared of the wrongful allegations
against him.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 March
1956. On 1 December 1964, he was notified of his commander's intent to
recommend him for an undesirable discharge for unfitness - sexual
perversion. The commander stated the reason for the proposed discharge was
the applicant’s indecent act with a child, as reported to him by the Air
Police and Office of Special Investigation (OSI). He requested a board
hearing. The board concluded that on 22, 26, and 28 October 1964,
applicant did commit indecent acts with two female children, ages 3 and 5,
and recommended his undesirable discharge for unfitness. The discharge
authority approved the recommended discharge action and he received an
undesirable discharge on 29 March 1965 for unfitness - sexual perversion.
He completed a total of 9 years and 23 days of active service. He was
serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of discharge.
On 12 June 1968, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered
and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The
AFDRB found the applicant was properly discharged and the type of discharge
was proper and equitable.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation and recommends the application be denied. The
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and
the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
The AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 31 October 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no
evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the applicant’s
discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force
Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all
the rights to which entitled. The applicant has provided no evidence to
indicate his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant recommending the
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered the
applicant’s overall quality of service and the egregiousness of the events
precipitating the discharge, and do not believe that clemency is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2003-03190
in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary Johnson, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03571
On 31 July 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request to upgrade his discharge. The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02729
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02729 INDEX CODE 111.02 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 30 Mar 83 be voided from his records and replaced with the “original one that had straight 9s,” his 1983 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01384
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01384 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Secretarial Authority” to “Medical - Personality Disorder.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03699
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s RE code. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. It appears his discharge was in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00873
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00873 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 17 February 1971, applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable....
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00842
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00842 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 AUGUST 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He received a Letter of Reprimand for this misconduct. On 23 March 2004, the Air Force Discharge Review...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478
Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01051
Further, DPPPR argues to award the applicant the DFC after he was awarded a medal for his actions would be an injustice to all other recipients of the AM awarded for actions similar to those of the applicant. DPPRSP’s letter to the applicant, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submitted additional documentation, through his congressman, withdrawing his request for the AFC and requested that his AM be upgraded to a DFC. Applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00269
Although the applicant contends the accusations of homosexuality were never substantiated, he rendered a sworn statement to the OSI, admitting to homosexual relations with Air Force personnel. Furthermore, the regulation in effect at that time required that a member be issued an undesirable discharge. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 8 Jun 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03639
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.