RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00282
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 AUGUST 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable in order for him to receive his Purple Heart (PH).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He failed to show up for duty on or about six months prior to his
discharge for duty and stated incorrectly to his squadron commander
that he was out of town and did not get back in time for duty. He
believes he should have received a less severe means of punishment.
The applicant provided no supporting documentation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on
18 November 1968 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.
On 25 October 1973, the applicant’s commander notified him he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) under the
provisions of Air Force Manual (AFM) 39-12 for unsuitability - apathy
defective attitude and inability to expend effort constructively. The
specific reasons for the discharge action were:
a. On 25 September 1973, the applicant received an Article 15
for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
b. On 16 July 1973, the applicant received an Article 15 for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
c. On 1 March 1973, the applicant received an Article 15 for
failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
The commander advised applicant that military counsel had been
obtained to assist him and a record of the consultation will be made
by military counsel and placed in the case file
The commander stated in the recommendation for discharge that he was
recommending the applicant receive a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge
and after consulting with counsel waived his right to submit
statements in his own behalf.
On 27 November 1973, the evaluation officer reviewed the case and
recommended the applicant be discharged with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the evaluation officer’s
findings.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge
without probation and rehabilitation. The legal office noted the
following derogatory incidents pertaining to the applicant.
a. On 15 June 197, the applicant received an Article 15 for
being disorderly.
b. The applicant received several letters regarding his
failures to repair between July and October 1973.
c. An incident report dated 12 May 1973 indicated the
applicant appeared at the main gate with contusions, lacerations and
in a state of intoxication.
d. An incident report dated 7 October 1973 reflected the
applicant cursed out an individual in the base dining hall and
threatened to turn a table over on the individual.
e. A letter of indebtedness, dated 28 September 1973,
reflected the applicant was three months in arrears on his car
payment.
f. The applicant was counseled on four occasions between
February and March 1973 regarding repeated failures to repair.
g. The applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) for the
period 26 September 1972 through 24 August 1973 reflected an overall
rating of “one,” although he had received previous APR’s of “eight”
and “nine.”
h. On 23 May 1973, the applicant was admitted into the clinic
for treatment and evaluation for alcohol problems. The clinical
summary indicated the applicant drank a pint of alcohol a day during
his period of treatment and made no serious effort to recognize his
drinking problem.
i. The applicant was evaluated by an Individual Evaluation
Officer and found that the applicant exhibited a pattern of
irresponsibility and that he did not respond to disciplinary action.
On 14 December 1973, the discharge authority approved the separation
and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 20 December 1973 under
the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability,
Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the
Service and Procedures of the Rehabilitation Program (unsuitability –
apathy, defective attitude and inability to expend effort
constructively), with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge. He was credited with five years, one month and three days
of active duty service.
___________________________________________________________________
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.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no
facts warranting a change in his character of service.
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the request for the PH be denied. They state
in order for a servicemember to be awarded the PH, the servicemember
must provide a detailed personal account, eyewitness statements, and
medical documentation to show the wound received treatment by medical
personnel and occurred as a direct result of enemy action. They
further state after a complete review of the applicant’s official
record, they were
unable to verify the applicant received the PH. Further no official
documentation was located or submitted by the applicant to verify his
entitlement to the PH. The applicant needs to provide a detailed
account of his injury or injuries received, certified eyewitness
statements and official medical documentation to very his entitlement
to the PH.
AFPC/DPPPR complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
9 March 2007, for review and response. 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 an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing
the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to recommend upgrading
the discharge. The applicant was discharged for unsuitability based
on apathy defective attitude and ability to expend effort
constructively. His military records reflect he received nonjudicial
punishment, administrative actions and counseling regarding his
disregard for military authority. Based on the documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge
and the characterization of the discharge were appropriate and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy. Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice.
4. The applicant also requested award of the Purple Heart Medal.
There is no evidence in the applicant’s records indicating he was
injured or received medical treatment for any injuries incurred as a
direct result of enemy action. However, should he provide
documentation verifying he sustained injuries that meet the criteria
for award of the Purple Heart, the Board
would be willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration.
Therefore, in the absences of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2007-00282 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 07.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Feb 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Feb 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00341
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00341 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 JULY 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 29 May 1973, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03508
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Jun 77, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic. He recommended applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and that he be considered for rehabilitation under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 4. Applicant was discharged on 11 Jul 80, in the grade of airman, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Unsuitable-Apathy,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03919
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03919 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 JUN 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged with...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00805 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01587
On 12 January 1977, the evaluation officer completed the evaluation report and recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded to recommend upgrading the discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00579
On 8 Apr 80, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability, apathy and defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Apr 12, for review and comment within 30 days. Based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00235
On 30 September 1981, an Article 15 for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority, from 16 September 1981 to 18 September 1981, and failing to go to his place of duty on 14 September 1981. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he makes no excuses nor does he deny any of the facts concerning his general discharge. He can...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03907
On 4 March 1980, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to report to his duty section at the prescribed time. ________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02863
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02863 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03785
The applicant was discharged on 29 Mar 73. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper, or that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07; AFBCMR dated 26 Jan 07.