RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03514
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The error was caused due to the time of his enlistment. He was a good
troop for the first one and a half years. He then opposed the war in
Vietnam, and was threatened, harassed and punched by a Sgt C__. He was
also passed over for advancement because of this man. He tried to
transfer out and it was rejected. He then went AWOL because he did
not know how else to deal with it at the time. When court-martialed,
he was too afraid of Sgt C__to disclose the real reasons for his AWOL.
He truly regrets his actions.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
2 December 1965. On 20 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by
Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 February -
19 March 1967 (30 days) and returned on his own. He was AWOL again,
26 April-15 May 1967 (19 days). He received a Special Court-Martial
and was confined at hard labor for 3 months and fined $192. He was in
confinement from 7 July to 14 September 1967 (70 days). The commander
notified the member on 17 October 1967 that he was being recommended
for discharge. On 20 September 1967, a psychiatric evaluation stated
the member could be best described as a sociaopathic personality,
antisocial type--impairment, marked for military service. The
applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (character
and behavior disorders) with service characterized general (under
honorable conditions) on 1 November 1967 in the grade of airman basic.
He served 1 year, 11 months and 15 days of total active military
service.
_________________________________________________________________
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:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated as the
“facts” portion of the letter may be correct, he stated in his
original application that he might not have handled the problems he
encountered in the manner that he would today. However, he was
harassed, threatened and denied advancement by one, Sgt C__, all
because he opposed the Vietnam War. If the Board has the ability
(after all these years) to find all records and files, the Board will
see that he was given advancement twice and it was denied to him by
Sgt C__ crossing his name off the list and throwing his advancement
letter away. There is no way to prove the many threats of harm made
to him on the flight line when it was just he and Sgt C__. There is
no way to prove today the injustice he served as a result of him.
Even other NCOs came to him and said that he was a good troop and
should not be harassed like that. He has stated that he did not
handle this problem well. He did request transfers and they were
denied, so he ended up running.
As far as being “sociaopathic personality, antisocial type” he
believes that most of us that were opposed to the war were called
that. He met with a psychiatrist one time for a half hour. He is not
sure that he could really make that determination in that amount of
time. He told him that he wanted to stay in the Air Force if he could
be transferred.
The Board may ask, why he would go through all this to receive an
honorable discharge given that he has under his present discharge all
the rights of an honorable? As he has stated before, he has cleared
up his entire past and request this consideration.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice warranting an upgrade in his
discharge. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we
found no indication that the actions taken to affect his discharge
were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing
regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions taken against
the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct.
Having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that
occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that
no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
03514 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 03, w/atch
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Nov 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Nov 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02547
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged on 2 Jan 75, after 8 months and 22 days on active duty. Therefore, her DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, does not list character and behavior disorder, personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder as the basis for discharge. The applicant argues that the diagnosis of “Anti-Social Personality Disorder”...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01937
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01937 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant’s application is at Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02895
Applicant has also requested that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. After reviewing applicant’s overall record of service and based on the fact that under today’s standards he would receive an honorable discharge, we recommend approval of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Show that on 26 April 1957, he was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02949
We see no evidence of an error in this case and after a thorough review of the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim on an injustice. Therefore, 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. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.
The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 12 August 1968. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that his General Court-Martial is news to him since he was not at the base at the time. Applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E. On 3 June 2002, a letter was forwarded to the applicant suggesting that he consider providing evidence pertaining to his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02198
It appears that she is requesting administrative corrections be made to her medical records and discharge documents. She submitted a hardship letter requesting that she be assigned to a different location or separated so that she could later reenlist. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02662
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant was informed that there was no indication in his record that he was awarded the...