Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01672
Original file (BC-2005-01672.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01672
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  DVA

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 NOV 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After all these years he needs to try to get his discharge upgraded
to acceptable standards.  He does not have much time left and would
like to have his discharge changed before  he  leaves  this  earth.
This is his final request.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  Jul  52  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 30 Jan 53, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm on the B-47  parking
ramp, on or about (o/a) 25 Jan 53, under circumstances such  as  to
endanger human  life.   For  this  offense,  he  was  sentenced  to
forfeiture of $50 and confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 30 days.

On 29 Oct 53, applicant was convicted by Special Court-Martial  for
stealing three shirts, o/a 10 Jul 53, of a total value  of  $10.20;
for wrongfully appropriating a red sport shirt, o/a 5 Aug 53, of  a
value of $4; for wrongfully appropriating a government vehicle, o/a
4 Sep 53, of a value of $1238.11,  and  for  being  absent  without
leave (AWOL) from o/a 10 Oct 53 until 15  Oct  53.   Applicant  was
found guilty of  all  charges  except  wrongfully  appropriating  a
government vehicle.  He was sentenced to CHL  for  six  months  and
forfeiture of $55 per month for six months.

On 13 Dec 55, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
being AWOL from o/a 1 Dec until 3 Dec 55.  For this offense he  was
restricted to the limits of the base for 18 days and forfeiture  of
$19.

On 4 May 56, applicant was convicted by Special  Court-Martial  for
two specification of stealing military  pay  certificates  totaling
$23.80.  His sentence consisted of a bad conduct  discharge  (BCD),
forfeiture of $65 per month for six months, and CHL for six months.
 The sentence was adjudged on 8 May 56 and affirmed on 25 Sep 56.

On 4 Oct 56, applicant was discharged with a bad conduct  discharge
in the grade of  airman  basic.   He  was  credited  with  3 years,
3 months, and 3 days of active duty service (excludes 346  days  of
lost time due to AWOL and confinement).

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 reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel  record,
they  found  the  discharge  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the
discharge authority.  They also noted applicant did not submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in
the discharge processing and provided no other facts  warranting  a
change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states  that  he  has  no  recollection  at  all  of  the
incidents in 1960 cited on the FBI Report.  After a  few  “run-ins”
with the law, he has served his time, and the best way to  describe
it is he woke up.  He has settled down with his wife of  41  years,
raised a family, and held a job until he retired after 20 years  of
outstanding  service.   He  cannot  change  his  brief  period   of
rebellion that he truly regrets, but has lived an honest life after
his time served.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

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  applicant’s
submission was thoroughly reviewed, and his contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  his  submission  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  the  Air  Force.
The evidence of record indicates the  applicant  was  convicted  by
numerous courts-martial for  discharging  a  fire  arm,  twice  for
stealing, and for being absent without leave (AWOL).   No  evidence
has been  presented  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
applicant’s  service  characterization  was  improper.   Therefore,
based on his overall record of service, the numerous courts-martial
which precipitated his discharge, the contents of the  FBI  report,
and the absence of evidence related to his post-service  activities
and accomplishments, we are not persuaded that an  upgrade  of  the
characterization of his discharge is  warranted  on  the  basis  of
clemency.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2005-01672 in Executive Session on 21 September 2005, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Jul 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jul 05.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02895

    Original file (BC-2002-02895.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant has also requested that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. After reviewing applicant’s overall record of service and based on the fact that under today’s standards he would receive an honorable discharge, we recommend approval of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Show that on 26 April 1957, he was honorably discharged in the grade of master sergeant and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

  • 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-2005-00132

    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 | 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03581

    Original file (BC-2002-03581.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 reviewed this application and found that based on the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. However, based on the offense,...

  • 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771

    Original file (BC-2007-00771.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, based on his overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Air Force Regulation 39-17A.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01303

    Original file (BC-2010-01303.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01303 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). On 19 Sep 60, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB considered and denied the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03609

    Original file (BC-2005-03609.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged with a BCD on 27 Sep 74. Based on his overall record of service, and in view of the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.

  • 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.