RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00008
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 JULY 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable
conditions).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His periods of being Absent without Leave (AWOL) were the result of his
presence being needed at home to stop his step-father from sexually abusing
his young sisters. Since his three older brothers were already serving in
the military and were unable to address the situation, he felt that it was
incumbent upon him to protect his family. He needs his discharge upgraded
so that he can receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 23 May
1956. On 14 August 1957, the commander notified him of his intent to
initiate discharge action against him under the provisions of AFR 39-22.
The commander indicated his basis for the action was the applicant’s 6
August 1957 conviction by the state of Texas, for theft of property of the
value of $50.00. The commander also referenced applicant’s two periods of
AWOL from 16 December 1956 through 8 January 1957 and from 1 June 1957
through 8 June 1957, and three Article 15s for failure to obey a lawful
order, failure to repair, and leaving place of duty without being properly
relieved. On 13 September 1957, he was discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-22 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 1
year, 2 months, and 6 days of active service, which excludes 45 days lost
time (18 days AWOL 16 Dec 56 – 8 Jan 57 and 7 days AWOL 1 Jun 57 – 8 Jun
57).
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, has provided applicant’s arrest record which is at Exhibit
F.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation. Further, the discharge was
within the discretion of the discharge authority. Applicant did not submit
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting a change to his
service characterization.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27
January 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. A copy of the FBI
arrest record was forwarded to applicant on 27 February 2006, for review
and comment within 14 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. The applicant’s comments concerning his reasons for going AWOL
are duly noted; however, his discharge had its basis in his trial and
conviction by a civil court for theft of property, resulting in a two year
probated sentence. 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.
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, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and information contained in the FBI Identification Record. On
balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.
________________________________________________________________
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-2006-00008
in Executive Session on 14 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 06.
Exhibit F. FBI Identification Record.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03647
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03986
On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair for squadron detail. On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00749
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03099
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03099 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 APR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 12 Aug 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 by...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01253
3) 19 Jan 82, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for violating Air Force Standards. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03881
Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the Board is persuaded that he has been a productive member of society since leaving the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 16 July 1957, he was discharged with service characterized as general...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00652
He received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 16 October 1956 and 10 December 1956, in which the overall evaluations were “excellent.” The applicant’s discharge case file has been lost or destroyed. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 18 June 1958. On 22 April 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 30 days (Exhibit E).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
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.