RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00297
INDEX CODE: 110.02
xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 JAN 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and immature at the time and asks for clemency.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire at the
National Personnel Records Center in 1973. His available records show he
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 April 1954 and was honorably
discharged on 14 August 1956. He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15
August 1956 and on 11 April 1960 was discharged with a general (Under
Honorable conditions) on 11 April 1060.
_________________________________________________________________
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 the applicant's discharge was proper and in
compliance with appropriate directives. 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 warranted. Should the applicant provide
statements from community leaders and acquaintances attesting to his good
character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-service
rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based on the new
evidence. We cannot, however, recommend approval based on the current
evidence of record. 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-2006-00297
in Executive Session on 16 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Reconstructed Master Personnel
Records.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00297
The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His spinal disc condition is the direct result of military operations during World War II. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat related was not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02516
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s master personnel record (MPR) appears to have been lost or destroyed. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01915
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-2006-02906
Based on the available documentation the following facts are provided. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of sergeant effective and with date of rank of 13 December 1945. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-02906 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03817
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant's service records cannot be located. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his duodenal ulcers, impaired hearing, and tinnitus, are not combat related. His records do show he suffered hearing loss while in service; however, impaired hearing and tinnitus cannot be considered combat related unless incidental to a combat related event or due to documented, continual and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03370
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The commander indicated his reasons for the action were that on 2 January 1986, the applicant was disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer, for which he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); on 2 October 1985, he received a letter of counseling concerning his negative attitude and military bearing; and on 6 September 1985, he received a letter of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03384
A copy of the report was provided to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. By letter, dated 29 January 2007, it was requested that the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02586
However, based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to A1C (16 Nov 74), he would not have had the sufficient TIG for promotion to SSgt until 16 Jul 75, five days after his discharge. 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 28 Sep 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-03798-2
On 29 April 2004, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request that his records be corrected to show that his medical problems were the cause of his discharge. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. The applicant has provided additional evidence through his Congressman’s office and requests that the Board reconsider his application. ...