Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00406
Original file (BC-2004-00406.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00406
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be  upgraded  to
honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had previously served three years and six months honorably.   He
served honorably for ten months of his last enlistment and does not
want or deserve that record to be tainted.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of service under review, the  applicant  served
honorably from 27 Aug 54 until his discharge on 5 Feb 58.   He  was
promoted to the grade of airman second class with an effective date
and date of rank of 18 Oct 57.

On 6 Feb 58, he reenlisted in the Air Force for  a  period  of  six
years in the grade of airman second class.   Applicant  received  a
character and efficiency rating of poor.

On 15 Oct 58, applicant’s unit commander  requested  a  psychiatric
evaluation on the  grounds  that  applicant  had  been  in  trouble
frequently since being stationed at the base.  On 23  Oct  58,  the
psychiatry evaluation rendered a diagnostic impression of  passive-
aggressive   reaction,    chronic,    moderate,    manifested    by
obstructionism and purposeful violation of the military code  under
inadequate guises.  Predisposition  was  described  as  mild.   His
impairment was described as moderate.  Line of  Duty  determination
was listed as no and that his condition existed  prior  to  service
(EPTS).

On 10 Nov 58, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of  reduction  to  the
grade of airman third class and forfeiture of $25.

On 19 Nov 58, applicant received a medical  evaluation  stating  he
had no physical or mental conditions  warranting  separation  under
the provisions of AFM 35-4.

On 8 Dec  58,  the  commander  initiated  administrative  discharge
action  against  the  applicant  for  unsuitability,  stating   the
applicant was a  passive-aggressive  type  who  committed  offenses
against the military system for no reason at all.  He  consistently
reported for work late and left his place of  duty  without  proper
authorization and failed to notify anyone that he was leaving.  The
specific  reason  for  the  discharge  was  based  on  the  medical
diagnosis and summary court-martial cited above.

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.  He further acknowledged that  he  understood
that if his application was approved, his separation would be under
honorable conditions (general).

On 10 Dec 58, the group  commander  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged.

On 23 Dec 58, the discharge authority approved a general  discharge
and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257AF, “General
Discharge.”  On 31 Dec  58,  applicant  was  discharged  under  the
provisions  of  AFR 39-16,  with  service  characterized  as  under
honorable conditions.  He was credited with a total of 4  years,  4
months, and 4 days of active duty service.

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 his request be denied.  They  found  that
the discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally,  that  the
discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the   discharge
authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in
the discharge processing  and  that  he  provided  no  other  facts
warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the 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 26 Mar 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

On 26 Apr 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.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing  regulation  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-00406 in Executive Session  on  10  June  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03587

    Original file (BC-2003-03587.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-03587 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 October 1982, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section A,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02565

    Original file (BC-2003-02565.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Dec 72, the evaluation officer found that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge based on his history of violations of military and civilian law. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02153

    Original file (BC-2002-02153.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s file, they found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time of his discharge. The complete Air Force 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 22 Aug 03 for review and comment within...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02655

    Original file (BC-2003-02655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Aug 70, the base commander recommended approval of an undesirable discharge. On 18 Aug 70, the discharge authority approved an undesirable discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” On 24 Aug 70, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, with service characterized as other than honorable. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00361

    Original file (BC-2004-00361.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). The majority of the Board finds no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, they do not believe the applicant has suffered an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 04, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100166

    Original file (0100166.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He had also been given three Article 15s: one for failure to repair and two for violation of IDF Memo 10 - 2, Curfew and Pass Violation. 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: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02745

    Original file (BC-2005-02745.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 69, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. Applicant was discharged on 24 Dec 70, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00935

    Original file (BC-2004-00935.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 21 October 1987 and understood if the recommendation for discharge was approved, he could receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the conditional waiver be accepted and applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02643

    Original file (BC-2004-02643.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 April 1964 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (personality and behavior disorder), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 October 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02983

    Original file (BC-2001-02983.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 December 1977, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for failure to go on 17 December 1977. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 24 January 1978 and ordered an UOTHC characterization without P&R. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair Mr. David W....