Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02164
Original file (BC-2004-02164.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02164
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions.  In support of his  application  he
submits a letter of character reference.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 January 1954, for
a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.   His  highest
grade held was airman third class.

On 30 Nov 54, applicant was convicted by summary court-martial  for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
on or about 20 Nov 54, and being drunk and disorderly in  a  public
place, on or about 21 Nov 54.  He was  sentenced  to  reduction  in
grade to airman basic, confinement at hard labor for one month, and
a forfeiture of $55.

On 7 Nov 55, he was convicted by summary court-martial of  breaking
restriction to the base on or about 6 Nov 55.  He was sentenced  to
reduction in grade to airman basic, confinement at hard  labor  for
one month, and a forfeiture of $55.

On 21 Aug 56,  applicant  was  punished  under  the  provisions  of
Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of a lawful regulation, in that  he
did not have his Armed Forces Liberty Pass in his possession on  or
about 17 Aug 56.  Punishment consisted of a reduction in  grade  to
basic airman.

On 28 May 1957, a special court-martial convicted applicant of  the
following:  (1) Wrongful possession of 256 grains, more or less, of
marijuana, on or about 18 Feb 57; (2) Wrongful use of marijuana, on
or  about  28  Jan  57.   Applicant  pled   not   guilty   to   the
specifications and the  charges.   The  military  judge  found  him
guilty on all charges and sentenced him to a bad conduct  discharge
(BCD), confinement for six months, forfeiture  of  $65.00  pay  per
month for six months, and reduction to the grade  of  airman  basic
(two  previous  convictions  were   considered).    The   convening
authority approved the sentence on 2 Jul 57, and the  court-martial
was affirmed on 29 Jul 57.  Applicant was discharged with a BCD  on
9 Nov 57.  He was credited with 3 years, 3 months, and 22  days  of
active military  service  (excludes  184  days  lost  time  due  to
confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided  a  copy  of  an
investigation report, which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  found  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation
and  recommended  disapproval.   Additionally,  the  discharge  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted
the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing,  or  provide
any facts warranting a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the 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 6 Aug 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date
no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit E)

On 19 Aug 04, the applicant  was  invited  to  provide  information
concerning  his  post-service  activities;  however,  he  did   not
respond.

On 31 Aug 04, a copy  of  the  FBI  report  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for  review/comment.   To  date,  no  response  has  been
received.

___________________________________________________________________


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  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.   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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02164 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146

    Original file (BC-2003-00146.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2000 | 9900471

    Original file (9900471.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00132

    Original file (BC-2005-00132.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2003-03986

    Original file (BC-2003-03986.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02764

    Original file (BC-2004-02764.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02764 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 4 days active service (excludes 197 days of lost time due to three periods of confinement). They also noted applicant did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02327

    Original file (BC-2005-02327.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 Aug 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). Were you provided a response on a timely basis? No c. Could be improved d. N/A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The Record of Proceedings (ROP) contains a summary of your request, your contentions, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00278

    Original file (BC-2004-00278.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 0101410

    Original file (0101410.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F. On 17 Aug 01, a copy of the FBI report and a request to provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities was sent to the applicant (Exhibit G). On 23 Aug 01, applicant provided a statement explaining his activities since leaving the service. Based on a review of the limited post- service evidence provided and in view of the contents of the FBI Identification Record, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101242

    Original file (0101242.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander, on 25 Jun 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class (permanent) and a reprimand. The commander, on 12 Jul 56, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman second class (permanent) and a reprimand. Should he provide such evidence (as relayed in our letter), of good conduct for the period of time which...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01912

    Original file (BC-2005-01912.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His record has been good since leaving the Air Force and he has no arrests. The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 Aug 05, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01912 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...