Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00910
Original file (BC-2006-00910.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00910
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 September 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  being  transferred  to  overseas  duty  and  his  family  was
authorized to join him.  While they were in transit  he  was  told  to
cancel their plans to accompany him to his duty station.  He  was  not
willing  to  do  that  and  accepted  an  under  honorable  conditions
discharge rather than leave his family.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his  DD  Form  293,  three
special orders, and a copy of his DD Form 214.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 16 Nov 56.  He continued to serve on  active  duty,  entering
his last enlistment on 6 Apr 61, when he reenlisted for  a  period  of
five years.  Prior to the events under review,  he  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-4), effective and  with
a date of rank of 1 Mar 59.

On 20 May 65, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  unfitness.    The
commander  was  recommending  applicant  receive  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge based on the following:  He received 13
letters of indebtedness and two letters of non-support.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
waived his rights to a hearing before  a  board  of  officers  and  to
submit statements in his own behalf.

The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient  to  support  separation  and  recommended   applicant   be
discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

The discharge authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  that
applicant be discharged with an under honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 19 Aug 65 under  the
provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge  of  Airmen  Because  of  Unfitness
(unfitness), with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.
He served 11 years, 8 months and 22 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
(FBI) indicated that, based on the  information  provided,  they  were
unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant (Exhibit
C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended the application  be  denied.   DPPRS  indicated
that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and  substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation,  and,  was  within   the
discretion of the discharge authority.   DPPRS  stated  the  applicant
submitted  no  evidence,  identified  no  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting
a change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 May 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We  note,
the applicant did not submit any evidence or  identify  any  error  or
injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing;  nor  did  he
provide any facts warranting a change to  his  character  of  service.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2006-00910 in Executive Session on 7 June 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01915

    Original file (BC-2006-01915.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00454

    Original file (BC-2006-00454.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and indicated that there was no documentation in applicant’s master personnel records relating to the reason for discharge or the discharge process. We find no evidence of error in this case and after...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00999

    Original file (BC-2006-00999.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 5 May 2006, for review and response. Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03896

    Original file (BC-2005-03896.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 Jul 83, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s unconditional waiver be accepted and that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 5 Aug 83, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, for a pattern of misconduct - discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities, with an under other than...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02861

    Original file (BC-2006-02861.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s commander notified him on 22 May 1987 that she was recommending his discharge for misconduct, specifically, a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, and that she was recommending his service be characterized as general. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01435

    Original file (BC-2006-01435.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 17 November 1950, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Exhibit B. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01435 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01960

    Original file (BC-2006-01960.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03270

    Original file (BC-2006-03270.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 10 Oct 84, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge. On 19 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00623

    Original file (BC-2006-00623.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. As of this date, this office has received no response. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901344

    Original file (9901344.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01344 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,...