Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00981
Original file (BC-2005-00981.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00981
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 SEP 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed by the adjutant lieutenant that his discharge  would  change
to honorable or desirable six months subsequent his discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant's military personnel records were totally  destroyed  by  fire
in 1973 at  the  National  Personnel  Record  Center  (NPRC)  in  St. Louis,
Missouri; therefore, the circumstances surrounding his separation  from  the
Air Force cannot be verified.

The available record provided by the applicant indicates on 2 October  1947,
the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 7 March 1952, he was  discharged  with  service  characterized  as  under
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) in the grade of private.



Pursuant to the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative  Report,  which  is  at
Exhibit B.

On 21 April 2005, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service   documentation   and   requested   he   provide   copies   of   any
documents/records that would assist the Board in  rendering  a  decision  on
his appeal within 20 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, the  applicant  has
not responded.

On 10 May 2005, the Board staff provided the applicant  the  opportunity  to
respond to the FBI report within 20 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date,  the
applicant has not responded.

_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  injustice.   Based  upon  the  presumption  of
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and  without  evidence  to
the contrary, we must assume the applicant's discharge  was  proper  and  in
compliance with appropriate directives.  Therefore, based on  the  available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  this
application.  Notwithstanding the above,  we  note  the  applicant  did  not
provide any information pertaining  to  his  activities  since  leaving  the
service.  If he were to  submit  post-service  documentation,  we  would  be
inclined to reconsider his appeal as a matter of clemency.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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  2005-
00981 in Executive Session on 28 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 March 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 April 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 2005, w/atch.




                       CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                       Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1998-02167

    Original file (BC-1998-02167.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. On 9 May 2005, the Board staff...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1996-03327A

    Original file (BC-1996-03327A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's request to have his discharge upgraded, and the rationale of the earlier decisions by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit C. The applicant submitted an undated DD Form 149 with attachments requesting reconsideration of his request to have his discharge upgraded (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903258

    Original file (9903258.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit G). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. AFBCMR Post Service Request F. FBI Report G. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding FBI Report

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00056

    Original file (BC-2005-00056.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00056 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 May 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03781

    Original file (BC-2005-03781.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03781 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Jun 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1963 general discharge be changed to honorable. On 10 May 63, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic with a general characterization of service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00335

    Original file (BC-2005-00335.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative discharge board recommended that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Applicant reviewed the FBI report and stated that he was in his house at the time of the alleged incident in question.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02048

    Original file (BC-2005-02048.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received one character and efficiency rating of “excellent,” dated 14 January 1952. 457522F), which is at Exhibit F. On 9 August 1955, the applicant submitted a similar application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01606

    Original file (BC-1998-01606.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801606

    Original file (9801606.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 Apr 89, the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-50.1, for drug abuse with service characterized as general. On 6 Jul 90, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Therefore, the Board recommends his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a majority of the Board recommends his RE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9600745

    Original file (9600745.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A letter, dated 2 Jun 98, submitted in the applicant's behalf, is at Exhibit D. The applicant's complete submission, provided through his congressman's office, is at Exhibit E. RESUME OF THE CASE: On 26 Aug 97, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable (see AFBCMR 96-00745, with Exhibits A through C). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we...