RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02048
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2006
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable
conditions).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not receive a bad conduct discharge. He was immature (only 17 years
of age) when he entered military service. He was not aware of his actions.
He is a long-standing member of the American Legion. He has proved his
allegiance to America for over 50 years. He tried to enlist in the Air
Force again in 1955.
In support of his application, the applicant submits his personal
statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 December 1951, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force at the age of
17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years.
The applicant received one character and efficiency rating of “excellent,”
dated 14 January 1952.
On 4 January 1952, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial
for being AWOL during the period of 22 December 1951 to 2 January 1952. He
was sentenced to perform hard labor for 14 days and forfeiture of $40.00.
On 22 January 1952, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for being
AWOL during the period of 16-21 January 1952. He was sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 15 days and forfeiture of $25.00.
On 23 February 1952, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for being
AWOL during the period of 17-20 January 1952. He was sentenced to perform
hard labor for two hours per day for 14 days.
On 21 March 1952, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a Request
for Board Action under provisions of AFR 39-17, indicating the applicant
was unfit for retention in the Air Force because of his indifferent
attitude toward the service and his fellow airman. He indicated the
applicant’s character and efficiency ratings were “Good” and
“Unsatisfactory,” respectively. Additionally, he stated all attempts at
rehabilitation had failed.
On 21 March 1952, a Board of Officers was convened to consider the
commander’s recommendation. The applicant was present, and it is indicated
in the proceedings that he expressed his desire to be discharged from the
service. He stated he did not desire a copy of the board record of
proceedings. The board found evidence of traits of character which rendered
retention in the service undesirable, and recommended he be discharged from
military service for unfitness.
On 22 March 1952, the discharge authority reviewed the findings and
recommendations of the Board of Officers, and approved the discharge
recommendation.
On 4 April 1952, the applicant was discharged for unfitness with a
characterization of service of undesirable.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant
(Identification Record No. 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. On 28 September 1955, the AFRDB concluded that
the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the type or
nature of the applicant’s discharge, and the request was denied. The AFDRB
Examiner’s brief is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS indicates the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. Additionally, DPPPRS stated the applicant did not submit any
evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing, or provide any facts warranting a change to his character of
service.
HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5
August 2005 for review and comment. On 25 August 2005, a copy of the
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) report was forwarded to the
applicant. As of this date, this office has received no response to any of
the aforementioned correspondence (Exhibit D). In response to our
invitation for post-service activity information, the applicant submitted
his comments dated 23 August 2005 and three (3) character reference letters
(Exhibit F).
________________________________________________________________
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 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. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the
existing circumstances. Although the applicant has provided some statements
concerning post-service conduct, we find these statements insufficient to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency. In view of
the above we find no basis to warrant favorable action on this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive
Session on 9 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Mr. August Doddato, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-02048:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 07 Aug 05 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 5 Aug 05;
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Aug 05, w/atch;
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. FBI Investigative Report.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 05, w/atchs.
CATHYLNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01109
For this incident, he was tried and convicted by a summary court-martial and sentenced to be confined to hard labor for 26 days, and to forfeit $50.00. On 28 December 1979, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts warranting a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02694
He had served 1 year, 2 months and 6 days on active service with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL. On 17 March 1959, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded so that he may enter active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00762
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 September 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael J. Exhibit B.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02478 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. Applicant's request for a change to his discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 12 August 1955. DPPRS stated that the records indicate the applicant’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The Board recommended discharge from the service because of unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. 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: On 15 Feb 01, the Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that the applicant did not provide evidence of errors...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02109
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02109 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. DPPRS indicated that the applicant...
For this incident, he was ordered to be restricted to the limits of his squadron area for a period of sixty (60) days and to forfeit fifty dollars ($50) of his pay. On 19 November 1954, 3 August 1955 and 23 June 1958, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade. On 12 July 2002, a letter from Congressman Markey’s office requesting assistance in upgrading applicant’s discharge was received by this office (Exhibit G).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03007
On 10 December 1990, the applicant submitted a request to his commander that he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 2 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to general. We have reviewed the evidence provided and are unable to conclude corrective action is warranted based on an injustice.
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...