Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04002
Original file (BC-2003-04002.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04002
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  MARY NEWMAN

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should have been because of hardship.  His  father  died
and he was the sole support for his mother.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 September 1961 for a
period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade  of  airman  third
class (A3C) on 21 November 1961.  He received three Airman Performance
Reports (APRs) closing 25 September 1962,  25 September  1963  and  25
September 1964, in which the overall evaluations  were  “an  excellent
airman,” “a good airman” and “an excellent airman.”

On 3 December 1964, applicant’s commander notified  him  that  he  was
recommending his discharge for apathy, defective attitude  toward  his
military obligation and inability  to  expend  effort  constructively.
Basis for the action:  His job performance during the previous 60 days
was marginal; his attitude towards noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and
his duty section had deteriorated  to  such  an  extent  that  further
efforts to rehabilitate him were not  in  the  best  interest  of  the
service; he was counseled for failure  to  prepare  his  quarters  for
inspection; he was counseled  for  being  late  for  bay  orderly;  he
received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 21 April
1964, on two counts of failure  to  repair  (punishment  consisted  of
reduction to airman basic and restriction to  the  limits  of  Glasgow
AFB, MO, for a period of 30 days); he was  counseled  for  failure  to
pass  barracks  inspection,  in  addition  he  received  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR) for disrespectful language towards a NCO; he failed to
report for duty on 22 November 1964; and he was  repeatedly  counseled
on his apathy towards his military obligations.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force  on  7  December  1964
under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (apathy and defective attitude)  and
received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served
3 years, 2 months and 12 days on active duty.

While reviewing the applicant’s records, it was discovered that  there
was an error on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of  the  United  States,
Report of Transfer or Discharge, effective 7 December 1964.  A DD Form
215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, has been completed to correct item 26 of the DD Form
214 to add National Defense Service Medal, and was  forwarded  to  the
applicant.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge  authority.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 February 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded
to the applicant and counsel for review and response within  30  days.
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.   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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.




                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00235

    Original file (BC-2004-00235.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 September 1981, an Article 15 for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority, from 16 September 1981 to 18 September 1981, and failing to go to his place of duty on 14 September 1981. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he makes no excuses nor does he deny any of the facts concerning his general discharge. He can...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925

    Original file (BC-2004-01925.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01835

    Original file (BC-2003-01835.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on review of the facts and interview with the applicant, the evaluator recommended a general discharge and no further rehabilitation. The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 15 June 1972 under the provisions of AFR 39-12 (Unsuitable - Apathy, Defective Attitude) and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03863

    Original file (BC-2004-03863.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 May 1961, his commander notified the applicant of his intent to discharge the applicant and recommended he be required to appear before an Evaluation Officer to determine his eligibility to be retained in the military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in his discharge, nor did he submit any new evidence or identify any errors or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00041

    Original file (BC-2003-00041.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00041 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. A new DD 214, Correction to DD Form 214, was issued changing the reason for discharge to read, “Unsuitability: Apathy and Defective Attitude.” The DPPRS evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02554

    Original file (BC-2007-02554.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He served 1 year, 1 month and 28 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report which is at Exhibit C. On 18 October 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 30 days (Exhibit D). We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432

    Original file (BC-2003-02432.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00929

    Original file (BC-2004-00929.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 Mar 01, the Wing Commander directed that the applicant be separated from the Air Force based on a Pattern of Misconduct (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). Applicant has indicated technical irregularity in his case based on AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2, which states “Airmen should have an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before discharge action starts...” Based on the actions taken against the applicant from Mar 00 to Dec 00, he was provided the opportunity to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01125

    Original file (BC-2003-01125.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation officer recommended the applicant receive a general discharge and not be considered for rehabilitation. 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 which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03508

    Original file (BC-2004-03508.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Jun 77, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. He recommended applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and that he be considered for rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 4. Applicant was discharged on 11 Jul 80, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Unsuitable-Apathy,...