Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02743
Original file (BC-2005-02743.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02743
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  5 JANUARY 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unfair.  There was no  mention  during  the  court-martial
trial that he would receive this type of discharge as punishment.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of  the  special
court-martial order and a copy of his separation document.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 April 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of  4  years.   He
was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman  second  class  (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 1962.

The applicant was reported absent without leave from 26-28  April  1966  and
20-23 May 1966.  On 21 July 1966, he  was  convicted  by  a  special  court-
martial for being absent without leave from 31 May to  11  July  1966.   For
this offense, he was sentenced to 3 months confinement and forfeited  $20.00
per month for 3 months.

On 29 September 1966, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant  that
he was recommending the applicant be separated from the Air Force under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17 because of frequent involvement of  a  discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities and a dishonorable failure to  pay
just debts.  The  applicant  was  advised  of  his  rights.   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt of notification, waived his right  to  consult  counsel
and his entitlement to appear before the board.   The  commander  thereafter
initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

On 14 November 1966, the discharge  authority  approved  the  recommendation
and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  from  the  service  and
furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate.

On  18  November  1966,  the  applicant  was  discharged  under  other  than
honorable conditions.  He had served 5 years 2 months and 18 days on  active
duty.  He had 134 days of  lost  time  due  to  absence  without  leave  and
confinement.

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. 543395L4), which is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________

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,  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:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 4 November 2005.  On 29 November 2005,  the  applicant
was  invited  to  submit  information   pertaining   to   his   post-service
accomplishments.  On 27 December 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).
________________________________________________________________

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.  In addition, in view of  the  applicant’s  apparent
involvement with civilian law enforcement since his  separation  and  absent
any evidence  by  the  applicant  attesting  to  a  successful  post-service
adjustment, we are not inclined to favorably consider his request  based  on
clemency.  Therefore, 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 30 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
           Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
           Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-02743:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 05 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Oct 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05; AFBCMR dated
                   29 Nov 05 & undated.
     Exhibit E.  FBI Report.




                                  RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01797

    Original file (BC-2005-01797.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Jul 05 for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003365

    Original file (0003365.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, stated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Since his discharge occurred over 48 years ago and considering he was only 19...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03647

    Original file (BC-2005-03647.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 September 1957, his commander requested the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he would be discharged for unfitness. DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at that time and, was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00749

    Original file (BC-2005-00749.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00749 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 04 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01991

    Original file (BC-2005-01991.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01991 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 100.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 81150 rather than 81130, and his 1985 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. According to his Enlisted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02144

    Original file (BC-2005-02144.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02144 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2006 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There was no discharge case file in the applicant’s military personnel records. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691

    Original file (BC-2003-03691.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02109

    Original file (BC-2002-02109.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02763

    Original file (BC-2005-02763.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 September 1975 and 17 February 1982, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and denied his request. On 27 January 1976, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Correction of Military Records Board. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02327

    Original file (BC-2005-02327.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 Aug 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). Were you provided a response on a timely basis? No c. Could be improved d. N/A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The Record of Proceedings (ROP) contains a summary of your request, your contentions, the...