RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03318
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was charged and convicted of pawning a government band
instrument, but he was only with the man that pawned it and had
nothing to do with the transaction. He was just at the wrong place
at the wrong time. He feels 57 years is a long time to live with a
charge he had nothing to do with.
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.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
It appears that the applicant’s records may have been destroyed in
the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center. Therefore,
the facts surrounding his discharge are not available.
The available records indicate applicant served in the Army Air
Corps from 17 Mar 47 to 19 Dec 47.
On 29 Aug 47, applicant was tried and convicted by special court-
martial for jointly disposing of, by selling, one saxophone valued
at $50.00, property of the Military Service of the United States.
He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, and
forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for six months.
On 19 Dec 47, applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge, under the provisions of AR 615-366, Sec 1 (Enlisted Men
– Discharge – Misconduct). The remarks section of the WD AGO Form
53-59 (Item 55) reflects 128 days of lost time.
A copy of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, provided
pursuant to the Board’s request, contained no entries subsequent to
the applicant’s discharge.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS makes no recommendation. They are unable to
determine the propriety of the discharge based on lack of
documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records. They
also noted the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
They defer to the Board to determine if applicant should be
granted relief based on limited supporting documentation in his
master personnel records.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 19 Nov 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date no response has been received by this office. (Exhibit C)
__________________________________________________________________
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After careful
consideration of the limited records available for our review, we
found no evidence that the applicant’s discharge was inappropriate
or contrary to the governing directives in effect at the time.
Nevertheless, we recognize the adverse impact of the applicant’s
undesirable discharge; and, while it may have been appropriate at
the time, we believe it would be an injustice for him to continue
to suffer its effects. Based on the letters of character reference
submitted in his behalf, it appears the applicant has been a
responsible citizen and productive member of society since leaving
the service. Therefore, we believe an upgrade of his discharge to
general (under honorable conditions) is warranted on the basis of
clemency. His request for upgrade to honorable was considered;
however, without complete knowledge of the circumstances of his
discharge and the overall quality of his service, we do not believe
that an upgrade to a fully honorable discharge is warranted.
Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected as
indicated below.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 19 December
1947, he was discharged with service characterized as general
(under honorable conditions).
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-03318 in Executive Session on 19 January 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Nov 04.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-03318
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 19
December 1947, he was discharged with service characterized as
general (under honorable conditions).
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-2003-03964
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. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00600
On 16 August 2001, the applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 21 November 2002, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01777
His date of rank for the grade of major be effective the date of the 1962 cycle. He was promoted to the temporary grade of first lieutenant (USAF) on 29 Nov 51; to the permanent grade of first lieutenant (USAFR) on 17 Jun 53. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's complete submission, we are not persuaded that his assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00467
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00467 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 AUGUST 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was reduced to the grade of airman basic with a date of rank of 20 September...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00148
She was discharged on 12 March 2001 with a general discharge and an RE code of “2B”, after serving for nine months and six days of active military service. DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant requests an upgrade of her reentry code because she made some bad choices as an airman in the USAF and would love the opportunity to reenlist. The applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
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.