RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01543
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 December 2006
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The basis for his discharge, i.e., being absent without leave (AWOL), was
due to physiological problems he was experiencing. He tried to talk to a
chaplain, but it did not help. In addition, his prior period of honorable
service should have been considered when characterizing his service for his
last enlistment. He knows what he did was wrong.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits several character reference
letters.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 14
March 1952 for a period of four years. He was progressively promoted to
the grade of airman first class (E-3). On 15 March 1956, he was honorably
discharged for convenience of the government.
On 16 March 1956, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of
six years. On 8 November 1957, applicant underwent medical examination and
was found physically qualified for separation. On 20 November 1957, the
commander notified applicant of his intent to initiate administrative
discharge action against him under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness).
The commander indicated his bases for the action were applicant’s three
summary court-martial convictions for failing to go to his place of duty on
9 and 10 August 1957 and being AWOL during the periods 19 September 1957 to
23 September 1957 and 21 October 1957 to 23 October 1957, and an Article 15
for stealing food valued at $2.00 from the dining hall. Applicant
consulted with legal counsel and waived his right to a hearing before a
board of officers. The discharge authority approved the recommended action
and on 30 December 1957, applicant was discharged and issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate. He completed a total of 5 years, 3 months, and 17
days, excluding 83 days of lost time.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records
is warranted, and states, in part, that based on the evidence of record,
applicant has had a long term history of alcohol abuse. However, there is
no evidence that the periods of AWOL were the result of his being
intoxicated. Further, he was never observed being intoxicated, or
possessing alcohol, while on duty. Regardless, abuse of alcohol is not an
excuse for misconduct. Applicant’s medical records do not indicate any
impairment that would prevent him from distinguishing between right and
wrong. Further, his discharge was consistent with Air Force regulations
and other airmen committing similar offenses.
The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 June
2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, as of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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. We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's
discharge. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive
evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not
afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. While
the applicant contends the actions which led to his discharge were the
result of physiological problems he was experiencing at the time, a
26 November 1957 medical evaluation determined that he was free of any
mental or physical defect and was capable of distinguishing right from
wrong. We conclude, therefore, that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of establishing that the discharge proceedings were improper and
that the characterization of the discharge was inappropriate based on the
existing circumstances.
4. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that
the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered
applicant's overall quality of service, his previous period of service
during which time he had 79 days of lost time, the three summary court-
martial convictions which precipitated the discharge, and available
evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments. Based
on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted.
The character references submitted by applicant are noted; however, they
only reference the applicant’s activities over the last five to seven years
and we do not find them sufficient to conclude that he has overcome the
behavioral traits which caused the discharge. In view of the above, we
cannot recommend approval based on the current evidence of record.
________________________________________________________________
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-2005-01543
in Executive Session on 12 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jun 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03867
He was never given a physical prior to his discharge from the Air Force. He had served 2 years, 7 months and 13 days on active duty. Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation from the Air Force indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service, retention or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental defects which would have warranted consideration in the Disability Evaluation System.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03414 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 JUNE 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge be changed to reflect a medical reason that would not require recoupment of his enlistment bonus. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01145
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01145 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 October 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Entry Level Separation be changed to honorable and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01425
He did not agree with the IPEB findings and recommendations and requested a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that a preponderance of the evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process and at the time of the applicant’s separation. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03956
The applicant appealed his punishment to the Numbered Air Force Commander. Involuntary intoxication can be a defense to drunk driving only if the applicant did not voluntarily ingest alcohol and his mental state rises to the level of legal insanity. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of either an error or injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s request for setting aside the nonjudicial punishment imposed upon him under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2001-01712-2
A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, including exhibits, is attached at Exhibit H. In his request for reconsideration, applicant now requests his UOTHC discharge be changed to a disability separation. No treatment was given for MS while he was on active duty. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02943
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 3 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04295
On 19 January 1967, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted. We note the applicant requests his discharge be upgraded from general to honorable; however, the evidence of record indicates he was discharged with an...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00870
DPPPR’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 8 April 2005. We took notice of the applicant’s contention that her late husband should be awarded the KDSM for time served in Korea; however, sufficient evidence has not been presented to substantiate this claim. We thoroughly reviewed the former...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03409
On 11 September 1956, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service and furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate. He had served 2 years 2 months and 9 days on active duty. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2004-03904 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,...