RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03961
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is not declaring that there was an error in his discharge, but he
is requesting an upgrade. When he enlisted in 1972, he had two
children, a limited education, and the responsibility of raising his
family. He accepted the discharge for being absent without leave
(AWOL), but regrets that decision to this date. He has paid for this
mistake for 31 years and pleads for an upgrade to his discharge.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered into the Air Force on 26 April 1973. On
29 March 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL. The reason for these charges was that on or
about 9 August 1973, without authority, he was absent from his
organization and remained absent until on or about 25 March 1974. On
4 April 1974, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the
service. He was counseled by the staff judge advocate of his rights
and conditions if his request for this type of discharge was approved.
The base legal office found the case was legally sufficient to
provide a basis for approving his request for discharge. He was
separated on 19 April 1974, under the provisions of AFM 39-12,
Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for
Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the
Rehabilitation Program (request for discharge for the good of the
service), with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)
discharge. He served four months and five days of active duty
service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining
to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in
the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The discharge 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
on other facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
Feb 04, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
Applicant was provided with a copy of the FBI report and he responded
by stating that in 1968, he was in a stolen car, and he knew the car
was stolen, however, the owner didn’t press charges. In 1969, he and
others were hanging around a bus station and when the guard asked them
to leave they argued with him. The police were called. After the
police arrived his brother raised his hand at the police officer but
didn’t strike him. They were told to leave, but did not and both were
arrested. He received one-year probation for this incident.
His complete submission is at 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 to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing his UOTHC
discharge to honorable. We find no impropriety in the
characterization of applicant's discharge. It appears that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the
rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. We conclude,
therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing
circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation
that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have
considered applicant's overall quality of service and the events which
precipitated the discharge. Based on the evidence of record, we
cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Applicant has not
provided sufficient information of post-service activities and
accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome the
behavioral traits, which caused the discharge. Should applicant
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting
to applicant's good character and reputation and other evidence of
successful post-service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider
this case based on the new evidence. We cannot, however, recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
03961 in Executive Session on 27 April 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James E. Short, Panel Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
Exhibit E. FBI Response, dated 4 Mar 04.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated.
JAMES E. SHORT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03986
On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair for squadron detail. On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00383
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00383 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 28 August 1974, the commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an honorable discharge. Exhibit E. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03470
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03470 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 3 years, 3 months and 24 days and was serving in the grade of private first class at the time of discharge. With regards to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04273
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement. On 30 July 2003, he applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge to be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02763
On 23 September 1975 and 17 February 1982, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and denied his request. On 27 January 1976, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Correction of Military Records Board. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01140
The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and requested not to be considered for the probation and rehabilitation (P&R) program. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 18 March 1974 and ordered an undesirable characterization without P&R. While we note the applicant’s assertion that he has not been in any trouble since his separation, the seriousness of the offenses for which the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03168
The applicant acknowledged if the request for discharge was approved he could receive an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable. The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his undesirable discharge upgraded to general. On 14 December 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation regarding his post-service activities (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00030
On 17 April 1972, the applicant’s commander forwarded the request to the group commander, recommending approval of the applicant’s request for discharge. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 17 days on active duty. The applicant has provided no evidence indicating the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01626
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant submitted a personal statement indicating he regrets the mistake he made while serving in the military and hopes the Board will grant his request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. On 22 June 2005, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629
The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...