RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03245
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect:
a. His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
b. All medals to which he was entitled.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never in trouble in his unit. He was never absent without
leave (AWOL). He does not know why he received a general discharge.
He has no evidence but his word.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).
The applicant’s available military personnel records reflect he
served on active duty from 15 February 1946 through 15 February
1949. He served in Okinawa, Japan from 9 November 1946 through
24 December 1946 and he was awarded the World War II Victory Medal.
The applicant was discharged on 15 February 1949, under the
provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-360 Expiration of term of
service with a general discharge.
A DD Form 215 was issued on 29 July 2004 adding the Air Force Good
Conduct Medal (AFGCM) and Army of Occupational Medal (Japan).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit
C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states they are unable to determine the propriety of the
applicant’s discharge based on the lack of documentation in his
records. The applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified
any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his
discharge, nor has he provided any facts to support a change in his
separation. Therefore, they defer to the Board to determine if the
applicant’s request should be granted (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
13 August 2004, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
On 24 August 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide
documentation pertaining to his military service and discharge. He
did not respond (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
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 of timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or an injustice. The Board notes the Air
Force has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the Air Force Good
Conduct Medal and the Army Occupational Medal (Japan) and these will
be presented to him. However, with regard to the issue of his general
discharge being upgraded, the Board agrees with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the
basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Based upon the presumption of regularity in the
conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary,
we must assume that the applicant’s discharge was proper and in
compliance with appropriate directives. Having found no error or
injustice, we likewise do not find an adequate basis to further
upgrade the applicant’s discharge on the basis of clemency.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03245 in Executive Session on 6 October 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 May 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 04, w/atch.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02854
The applicant’s flight commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from the course and discharged from the Air Force because of his inability to adapt to requirements of the Intel career field or the Air Force. DPPRS notes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02247
The discharge authority approved the findings and recommendations of the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 October 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02506
On 9 October 1979, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling regarding his job performance. On 17 December 1979, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable - Personality Disorder). After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02601
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). The Board majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that the entry-level separation characterization received by the former member should be changed to an honorable discharge. CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of , AFBCMR BC-2004-02601 I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01400
d. The applicant received numerous counselings and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) documenting his disrespectful attitude and substandard military bearing. Based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D). On 29 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide information regarding his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03588
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03588 INDEX CODE: 110.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 MARCH 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of discharge be changed from 15 September 1967 to 17 September 1967, and his record be corrected to show he served 4 years on active duty, rather than 3 years, 11 months and 28...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01228
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Army of the United States (Army Air Force) on 6 Jul 42. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Jul 04 for review...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that information reflected on his WD AGO Form 53-59, they find no evidence to indicate the applicant's discharge, over 48 years ago, was incorrect, an injustice occurred to the applicant, or 97- 03744 that the discharge did not comply with the discharge directive in effective at the time of his discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01473
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial. They indicated to award the PH, a member must provide documentation to support the wound received was a direct result of enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical personnel. The applicant also believes he should receive award of the PH for an injury received to his right knee on a separate occasion after defusing a bomb.