RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02134
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 January 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was tried by court-martial, where the charges were dismissed, and
later discharged. At the time of his discharge he was young and
foolish. Since that time, he has led a good, clean life. He has
tried to be a good citizen with no criminal history, a good father,
grandfather, and most importantly, a good Christian. He would like,
for the first time in 40 years, to feel like he is not ashamed of his
military record.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the
United States.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted on 14 Mar 66 and was progressively promoted to the
grade of airman (E-2). On 8 Dec 67, the applicant, then an Airman (E-
2), was charged with four specifications of larceny, in violation of
Article 121, UMCJ. In addition, he received an Article 15 for
violation of Article 128, UCMJ, two letters of reprimand (LOR), one
letter of counseling, and one referral APR. On 14 Dec 67, after
consulting with counsel, he requested to be discharged for the good of
the service. The base legal office reviewed the case, found it
legally sufficient to support the separation, and recommended he be
discharged with an undesirable discharge. The discharge authority
approved his request for discharge for the good of the service and
directed that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He was
separated from the Air Force on 26 Jan 68, under the provisions of AFM
39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or
Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for
the Rehabilitation Program (request for discharge for the good of the
service), with an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable)
discharge. He served 1 year, 10 months and 13 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on the basis of the data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge
authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any
errors in his 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 4
Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 applicant has failed to
sustain his burden of establishing that the discharge proceedings were
improper and that the characterization of the discharge was
inappropriate based on 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, his previous period
of service during which time he had 79 days of lost time, the three
summary court-martial convictions which precipitated the discharge,
and available evidence related to his post-service activities and
accomplishments. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude
that clemency is warranted. In view of the above, we cannot recommend
approval based on the current evidence of record.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2006-02134 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 Jul 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Jul 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01918
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02354
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02354 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. The board of officers recommended applicant be discharged with an under other than...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00907
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00907 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 1 year, 2 months, and 12 days total active service with 216 days of lost time. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01163
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03608
On 24 Jun 96, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. After review of the evidence of record, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The Board further...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02070
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-2006-01115
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01115 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code, Narrative Reason and Separation Code be changed so he may join the Air National Guard. On 7 February 1997, the discharge authority directed that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00434
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02006
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02357
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAT provides no recommendation. DPPAT states the AFDRB’s approval to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable does not by itself grant MGIB entitlements. A separation code of KDH – Hardship, allows the VA to provide MGIB benefits to a member based on the number of months he served under honorable conditions.