RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01915
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX JR COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE 25 OCT 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was just 19 years old and made a dumb mistake.
In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a copy of the
summarized record of trial by special court-martial.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 January 1964 for a
period of 4 years.
On 16 November 1965, he was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for frequent involvement
of a discreditable nature with military and civil authorities. The
specific reasons for the proposed action were:
On 8 Jan 65, applicant was convicted by special court-martial
for wrongfully appropriating a 1956 automobile valued at over $50 and
breaking restriction.
On 21 Aug 65, he was convicted by civil court for stealing a
Triumph motorcycle.
On 1 Nov 65, applicant was convicted by civil court for
interstate transport of a stolen motor vehicle.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with
counsel waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and to
submit statements in his own behalf.
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed he be
discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)
discharge.
On 11 January 1966, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, with an under other than
honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. He was credited with 1 year,
6 months and 16 days of active duty service (excluding 168 days of time
lost for the periods of 4 Jan 65 – 7 Jun 65 and 21 Aug 65 – 2 Sep 65).
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:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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. Additionally,
the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.
They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided
no other facts warranting a change to his character of service.
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21
July 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
01915 in Executive Session on 6 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jul 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01435
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2006-00910
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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03022
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)...
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: The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states the applicant was court-martialed because he pled guilty in a civil court and was sentenced to one-year civil confinement for assault with intent to rob. They further...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00596
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00596 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. His sentence consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1), 30 days of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $30. On 8 Sep 59, the Air Force Discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02832
The Discharge Authority approved his request for discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge on 9 April 1957. Based on the foregoing clemency considerations, we believe that his discharge should be upgraded to “under honorable conditions.” _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 April 1957, he was discharged with...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01960
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-2006-03017
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...