RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03964
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His non-commissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) was a racist and told
him that he hated him. His performance evaluations went from high
ratings to low ratings after his commander retired. His NCOIC tried
to hang him, and he had no one to turn to for support, so he took a
discharge.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered into the Air Force on 6 October 1972. On
13 September 1974, his commander notified him, that he was
recommending he be discharged, under the provisions of AFR 39-12, for
frequent involvement in matters of a discreditable nature with
military authorities. The basis for the action was that on 1 July
1974, he failed to go and received an Article 15, which was suspended
until 1 January 1975 and ordered to forfeit $25.00 per month for two
months. He also failed to go on or about 20 and 21 July, 30 and 1
August 1974. He was reduced to airman and restricted to the limits of
the base for 30 days. He waived his right to a hearing before an
administrative discharge board and submitting statements in his
behalf. The base legal office found the case was legally sufficient
to support discharge. The legal review also indicated that repeated
attempts at counseling and rehabilitation proved fruitless, and there
were no indications that future attempts would have been any more
successful. He was discharged on 1 November 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 (frequent involvement of a
discreditable nature with civil or military authorities), with an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served a total
2 years and 25 days of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 27 February 2004, that on the basis of
the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.
_________________________________________________________________
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
no 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an upgrade of his
discharge. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we
found no indication that the actions taken to effect 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.
The only other basis upon which to upgrade his discharge would be
based on clemency. However, applicant has failed to provide
documentation pertaining to his post service activities. Should he
provide documentary evidence pertaining to his post service
activities, we would be willing to reconsider his appeal. Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which
to favorably consider 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 Docket Number BC-2003-
03964 in Executive Session on 30 March 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03917
On 14 February 1974, he requested discharge for the good of the service. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and considered the applicant’s case for change of his discharge and concluded that a change was not warranted. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04098
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04098 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current evidence of record. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00805 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02794
On 4 February 2004, a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty was issued to the applicant changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, but denial of the RE code change request. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02041
On or about 26 July 2000, he changed his response to this question to a “yes” on his security questionnaire. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the RE code issued at the time of separation was accurate.
DPPRS stated that, based upon the documentation in the file, applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and we find the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct (pattern of minor disciplinary infractions). We have noted the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01571
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01571 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03318
In support of his application he submits his personal statement, seven letters of character reference, a copy of his WD AGO Form 53- 59, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Undesirable Discharge, a copy of the special court martial order, and a copy of his discharge order. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2004-03318 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01131
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01131 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00814
On 15 March 2002, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. The applicant’s RE code had its basis in his involuntary discharge for fraudulent entry into the service.