RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-00866
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1956 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was 18 years old and did not steal the tire chains, but he was
accused of being an accomplice because he was with the person who
stole.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Apr 54.
He received an Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed and was reduced from airman third class to
airman basic effective 20 Aug 54. He did not appeal.
On or about 28 Nov 54, the applicant and three other individuals
unlawfully entered the Frontier Service Station in Denver, CO, and
stole several sets of tire chains (valued less than $50.00). General
Court-Martial Order (GCMO) No. 52, dated 11 Apr 55, sentenced him to a
bad conduct discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
confinement at hard labor for one year.
A 6 Jun 55 Admission Classification Summary noted the applicant
appeared to be an impressionable, passive individual with a tendency
to cling to others and, although realizing the theft was wrong, went
along with the group without knowing exactly why. The applicant was
not considered to represent a delinquent with premeditated criminal
actions.
GCMO No. 182, dated 18 Jul 55, suspended the execution of the BCD
until the applicant’s release from confinement.
A Classification Summary, dated 18 Aug 55, recommended clemency and
restoration. On 30 Aug 55, the Correctional Classification Board (CCB)
deferred restoration and clemency pending further observation,
although a repeat offense was not expected. Restoration and clemency
was again deferred on 3 Nov 55 because the CCB believed the
applicant’s immaturity would benefit from additional time and
observation. No future problems were anticipated.
On 29 Nov 55, the CCB found the applicant had progressed and was
enrolled in the jet bomber course. The CCB recommended restoration and
that the BCD be suspended until the applicant’s release from
confinement and six months thereafter at which time, unless the
suspension was sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further
action. Remission of the balance of the sentence pertaining to
confinement and forfeiture was also recommended with a return to duty
in full pay status.
GCMO No. 617, dated 13 Dec 55, remitted the unexecuted portions of the
sentence pertaining to confinement and forfeitures and suspended the
BCD until 7 Dec 56, at which time, unless sooner vacated, it would be
remitted. The applicant had been in confinement from 4 Feb 55 to 13
Dec 55.
On 8 Aug 56, the squadron commander initiated discharge action, with a
general characterization, against the applicant based on his
regression of performance. Apparently, the regression was not due to
his job or his supervisor, but because he could not acclimate himself
to service life. From Mar 56 to Aug 56, the applicant’s performance
had been unacceptable and he had shown signs of emotional instability.
The commander indicated the applicant could not work under any stress
and in general had become useless to himself and the Air Force. The
base chaplain indicated in an 8 Aug 56 memo that he had counseled the
applicant for the past six months. However, the applicant was very
discouraged that he could neither readjust to the Air Force nor
overcome his prison record. The chaplain advised that he, the squadron
commander, and others had tried unsuccessfully to resolve the
applicant’s problems.
The discharge authority approved the general discharge on 8 Aug 56.
A 23 Aug 56 medical examination diagnosed the applicant with a passive-
dependency reaction, chronic, severe, minimal stress, and severe
predisposition, with marked impairment. The physician also indicated
these conditions existed prior to service (EPTS). The applicant was
found qualified for discharge.
An evaluation officer interviewed the applicant on 31 Aug 56 and found
him to be a confused, troubled young man with a defeatist attitude.
The officer concluded retention would not benefit him or the Air Force
and a general discharge was recommended.
On 19 Sep 56, the applicant was discharged with a general
characterization after 1 year, 6 months and 22 days of active service,
and a total of 312 days of lost time.
On 28 Jan 65, the applicant filed an appeal for an upgraded discharge
with the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 19 Feb 65, his
request was denied.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS finds the discharge consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant submits no
evidence of error and injustice and his appeal should be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 2 Apr 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
documentation pertaining to this case, we are not persuaded the
applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Despite
admitting he knew it was wrong, the applicant went along with his
friends in stealing tire chains from the service station. He was
granted clemency and given a chance at rehabilitation through the
remission of the unexecuted portions of his sentence, to include the
BCD, but his performance became unacceptable. The commander, the
chaplain and others apparently tried to help the applicant, but were
unsuccessful. The applicant has not shown that his general court
martial and ultimate discharge were in error or unjust. Further, the
applicant has provided no evidence that, following his discharge, he
became a productive, respectable member of society. Should he provide
post-service information demonstrating he has been a responsible, law-
abiding citizen, we would be willing to review his case for possible
reconsideration. Until then, we agree with the recommendations of the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has not suffered either an error or an
injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 18 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-00866 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 04
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00132
On 10 Feb 05, SAF/MRBR advised the applicant that, upon receiving his application, they researched the index of military personnel records stored at NPRC. Pursuant to a 3 Mar 05 request by the AFBCMR Staff, AFLSA/JAJM provided a copy of the applicant’s Record of Trial (ROT) and associated documents, including a legal review. The Board of Review did not recommend clemency and, on 24 Aug 56, the sentence was affirmed.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00278
Furthermore, in view of the repeated misconduct during his short period of service that resulted in his court-martial actions and subsequent discharge and the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s service on the basis of clemency is warranted. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge is not favorably considered. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02164
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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02153
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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 05283
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05283 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded based on clemency. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge (DD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement one year. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03770
On 2 May 57, the US Air Force Board of Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. On 16 Sep 57, the convening authority mitigated the dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge and he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-18 with a bad conduct discharge in the grade of airman basic, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02855
If the Board cannot pardon him or chooses not to do so, he requests that his FBI record be corrected to reflect that he was only arrested once, not twice as his record reflects. On 6 Oct 00, the applicant requested a waiver of his “4F” RE code to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.