RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03691
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL:
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told his discharge would be favorably upgraded five years
after his discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 June 1952 for a
period of four years. His highest grade held was airman third
class (A3C/E-2). Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman
basic (AB/E-1).
On 2 Feb 53, applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 Nov 52 to 24 Dec 52. His
punishment consisted of two months of confinement at hard labor
(suspended for six months), and forfeiture of $50 per month for two
months.
On 12 Oct 53, he was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for failure
to repair on 3 and 5 Oct 53. His punishment consisted of
restriction to the limits of the base for 45 days and forfeiture of
$30.
On 13 Oct 53, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair in
Dining Hall Number 7, on or about 29 Sep 53. He was reduced to the
grade of basic airman.
On 7 Nov 53, he was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for breaking
restriction on or about 31 Oct 53. His punishment consisted of
forfeiture of $28.
On 26 Jan 54, applicant was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-17, with service characterized as under other than honorable
conditions and issued an undesirable discharge. He was credited
with 1 year, 3 months, and 10 days of active duty service (excludes
124 days lost time due to being AWOL and confinement).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied. 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.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the
discharge authority. They also noted applicant did not submit any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in
the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an
upgrade of the discharge.
A complete copy of the 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 19 Dec 03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
On 30 Jan 04, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for comment. At that time, the applicant was also
invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities
since leaving the service (Exhibit F). 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, 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 careful
consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that
the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper
or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in
effect at the time, or that the actions taken against him were
based on factors other than his own misconduct. Based on his
overall record of service, and in view of the contents of the FBI
Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of
the characterization of his discharge is warranted. 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 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-2003-03691 in Executive Session on 18 March 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Jan 04, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01480
Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the 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 1 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00596
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00596 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. His sentence consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1), 30 days of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $30. On 8 Sep 59, the Air Force Discharge...
On 13 Nov 52, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 Oct 52 until on or about 12 Nov 52. The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 9 Dec 1953, he was discharged with...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01672
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was convicted by numerous courts-martial for discharging a fire arm, twice for stealing, and for being absent without leave (AWOL).
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02764 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 4 days active service (excludes 197 days of lost time due to three periods of confinement). They also noted applicant did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a letter of character reference from his pastor and deacon board; a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States and his Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing record. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. He also states that when he was discharged, he was told that in six months his discharge would be upgraded.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03445 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husband’s bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. On 28 Sep 54, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the member’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02854
The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a personal statement summarizing his accomplishments since leaving the service. Exhibit B. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jan 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03378
He was given an early release for good time served. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. However, given the seriousness of the misconduct which led to the applicant’s bad conduct discharge and the fact that his...