Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03339
Original file (BC-2005-03339.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03339
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXX                                COUNSEL: NONE

      X     XXXXXX                      HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 MAY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 20 years old, intoxicated, and assured by his military  counsel
that his  discharge  would  be  upgraded  within  six  months  of  his
termination. The punishment of him having to live  with  this  on  his
record for over 40 years far out weigh the severity of his action.

In support of his application, applicant submitted a  personal  letter
and a copy of his Certificate of Military Service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available records indicate the applicant  entered  active  duty      2
June  1960  and  was  discharged  with  a  general  (under   honorable
conditions) discharge on 15 August 1962 in the grade of airman basic.

The remaining applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by
fire in 1973.  Therefore, the facts surrounding his service in the Air
Force cannot be verified.

On 17 April 1962, applicant was convicted by special court-martial for
the following specifications:

      a. On or about 22 March 1962, applicant wrongfully  appropriated
a 1952 Ford automobile, valued at more than $50.00.

      b. On or  about  22  March,  without  proper  authority,  absent
himself from his organization and did remain absent until on or  about
28 March 1962.

He was sentenced to  confinement  at  hard  labor  for  three  months,
forfeiture of $55.00 per month for three months  and  reduced  to  the
grade of airman basic. The sentence was adjudged on 5 April  1962  and
the convening  authority  approved  the  sentence  and  directed  that
sentence be executed.

On 9 August 1962, applicant was convicted by special court-martial for
the following specifications:

      a. On or about 29 June 1962, applicant wrongfully appropriated a
1956 Dodge automobile, valued at more than $50.00.

      b.  On or about 29 June 1962, applicant operated a vehicle in  a
reckless manner by driving at a speed in excess of 40 miles  per  hour
and by driving across the  lawn  in  front  of  the  Base  Confinement
Facility and over a  concrete  barrier  in  the  parking  lot  in  the
Transportation-Operations Squadron barracks area.

He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad  conduct
discharge. The sentence to a bad conduct discharge was commuted  to  a
forfeiture of $50.00 by the officer exercising  general  court-martial
jurisdiction.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS was unable to determine  the  propriety  of  the  discharge
based on the lack of documentation in the  master  personnel  records.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. DPPRS defers  to
the Board to determine if the applicant should be granted relief based
on limited supporting documentation in his master personnel records.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
23 November 2005, for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  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 that  the  applicant's  discharge  was
proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  The only  other
basis upon which to upgrade his discharge would be based on  clemency.
However, applicant has failed to provide documentation  pertaining  to
his post service activities.  Should he provide  documentary  evidence
pertaining to his post service  activities  we  would  be  willing  to
reconsider his appeal.  In the absence  of  such  evidence,  favorable
action is not recommended.  Therefore, based on the available evidence
of record, we find no basis upon  which  to  favorably  consider  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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03339 in Executive Session on 5 January 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Reconstructed Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Nov 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 05.




                                             JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03339A

    Original file (BC-2005-03339A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03339 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03022

    Original file (BC-2005-03022.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 Apr 62, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for a civil court conviction. Applicant was discharged on 26 Apr 62, in the grade of airman basic (E-1), under the provisions of AFM 39-22, with separation designation number 284 (Involuntarily discharged for misconduct, civil court disposition, processed by waiver of entitlement to a board hearing), and was issued an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03295

    Original file (BC-2005-03295.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03295 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 FEBRUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation, trial by court-martial, be changed. The narrative reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) indicates...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01461

    Original file (BC-2005-01461.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states 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. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. Therefore, based on the available...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03254

    Original file (BC-2005-03254.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The applicant requests his RE code be changed to allow enlistment in the Air National Guard.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03572

    Original file (BC-2006-03572.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03572 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MAY 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 4 December 1964, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01966

    Original file (BC-2005-01966.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 October 1984, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that the applicant was provided full due process. However, after thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the comments of the Air Force office of primary responsibility are supported by the evidence of record. We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02948

    Original file (BC-2005-02948.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please consider the time he has spent in the U.S. Army after he was discharged from the U.S. Air Force; it was eight years or more. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states 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. Applicant did not submit any evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02195

    Original file (BC-2005-02195.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (Conviction by Civil Court) with an undesirable discharge on 1 May 54, in the grade of airman basic. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03382

    Original file (BC-2005-03382.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was convicted by Special Court-Martial (SPCM) Order Number 31, dated 3 April 1953, for on or about 17 March 1953, without proper authority, through neglect destroy, by throwing a shoe through a window pane, a window pane of value of about $2.50, military property of the United States; on or about 17 March 1953, assaulting an individual by striking at him with his fist and on or about 17 March 1953, disorderly in quarters. DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master...