Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01918
Original file (BC-2006-01918.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01918
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 DEC 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has suffered  long  enough  and  requests  the  Board  consider  him  for
clemency.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an  airman  basic  on  30
April 1956, for a term of 4 years.    On 10 January 1958, he was  discharged
from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-17,  Discharge  of  Airmen
Because of Unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He served a  total  of
1 year, 8 months and 11 days of active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 28 July 2006, that on the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS defers to the Board to  determine  if  the  applicant  should  be
granted relief based on  limited  supporting  documentation  in  the  master
personnel records.  DPPRS states they are 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  error  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.

The 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  28
July 2006, 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 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 clemency.  However, applicant has  failed  to
provide documentation pertaining to his post service activities.  Should  he
provide statements from community leaders  and  acquaintances  attesting  to
his good character and reputation and other  evidence  of  successful  post-
service rehabilitation, we would be willing to  reconsider  his  application
based on new evidence.   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 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-2006-01918
in Executive Session on 19 September 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Request, dated 21 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jul 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02134

    Original file (BC-2006-02134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 Dec 67, the applicant, then an Airman (E- 2), was charged with four specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UMCJ. The discharge authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Jul 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02070

    Original file (BC-2006-02070.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 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 28 Jul 2006 and 2 Aug 2006, for review and comment within 30 days. Based on the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02006

    Original file (BC-2006-02006.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02006 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 January 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Further, we may base our decision on matters of inequity and clemency rather than simply on whether rules...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00434

    Original file (BC-2006-00434.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00434 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 JUL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03022

    Original file (BC-2006-03022.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03022 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 APRIL 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions). Headquarters Third Air Force legal office and the base legal...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02356

    Original file (BC-2006-02356.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02356

    Original file (BC-2006-02356.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01163

    Original file (BC-2006-01163.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPPRS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states he believes the medical evidence he provided identifies errors in the discharge process. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to affect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2001-02110

    Original file (BC-2001-02110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 March 1957, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02023

    Original file (BC-2006-02023.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RE code 2C indicates involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service. 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. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors...