RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00279
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 AUG 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable
conditions).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have been given a general discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Mar 56 for a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic (AB/E1). He was
promoted to the rank of airman third class with an effective date
and date of rank of 9 Jun 56.
On 8 Oct 56, applicant was tried in a civil court on the charges of
assault and battery with intent to kill. He pled guilty to the
charges. He was convicted and sentenced to confinement in the
State Penitentiary at hard labor for a period of three years.
On 9 Oct 56, the Assistant Adjutant initiated administrative
discharge action against the applicant by reason of conviction by
civil court.
On 15 Oct 56, the discharge authority approved an undesirable
discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a
DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.”
On 17 Oct 56, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-22,
by reason of conviction of civil court and was issued an
undesirable discharge certificate. He was credited with 6 months
and 4 days of active duty service (excludes 23 days lost time due
to confinement).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 7 Apr 06, that, on the
basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record
(Exhibit E).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied. Based on
documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority. They also noted applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other
facts warranting a change to her character of service.
A complete copy of the 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 24 Feb 06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
On 18 Apr 06, applicant was invited to provide additional evidence
pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F).
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 error or injustice. The discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing directives and we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he
has suffered from an injustice. In addition, based on his overall
record of service and the absence of evidence related to his post-
service activities and accomplishments, we are not persuaded that
an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on
the basis of clemency.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2006-00279 in Executive Session on 24 May 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Feb 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 06.
Exhibit E. FBI Report, dated 7 Apr 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Apr 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00131
On 12 Jan 78, the applicant amended his original conditional waiver and waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent on his receipt of no less than a general discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00509
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 17 Mar 06 for review and comment within 30 days and on 17 Apr 2006, he was forwarded a copy of the FBI report. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02887
Based on the circumstances of his discharge, they found no evidence or injustice; therefore, applicant’s RE code is correct. HQ AFPC/DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Nov 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01278
He began to look for means to support his addiction for which he was convicted. Civilian court conviction consisted of confinement from 21 Feb 56 – 17 Mar 56 (36 days). On 10 Sep 69, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded and for a waiver to permit reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01438
The board convened on 18 Mar 55 and recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable characterization for unfitness, and the discharge authority approved the discharge. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 8 Jun 06, the applicant indicates he began drinking when his squadron was transferred to Japan because they had too...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03017
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. 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. Furthermore, based on the available evidence of record and since the applicant has not provided information of his post-service activities and accomplishments, we cannot conclude that clemency is...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01274
On 30 May 84 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force based n the following: 1) 28 Mar 84, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for substandard performance. Novel, Panel Chair Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01274 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 06, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01568
The Board found that the applicant did commit an act of homosexuality and recommended he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 8 December 1955, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). JOE G....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02977
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02977 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 APR 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed to “academic difficulties” rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily...
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.