RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00398
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 AUGUST 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After a fight with a fellow airman he was confined to the stockade.
He was released from the stockade and brought before a Summary Court-
Martial Board and discharged with an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge.
His commander recommended that he could upgrade his general discharge
to honorable.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted character reference
statements and his DD Form 214.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 August
1956 as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.
On 27 June 1957, the applicant was convicted by Summary Court-
Martial for violation of Article 128 (assault with a dangerous
weapon) and subsequently confined for 20 days, forfeiture of $25.00
and reduction to AB.
On 5 February 1958, the applicant’s commander notified him he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force (AF) under the
provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-16 as an untrainable and
unproductive airman.
The evaluation officer interviewed the applicant and explained the
following:
a. The action which was recommended against him.
b. Advised the applicant on his right to submit statements in
his own behalf.
c. Advised the applicant that he (the evaluation officer)
would assist him in preparing a statement in his behalf if he so
desired.
On 7 March 1958, the evaluation officer recommended the applicant be
discharged for unsuitability for military duty and lack of value to
the AF with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The
evaluation officer further indicated the applicant’s service had not
been such as to warrant discharge under other than honorable
conditions. The applicant is a person of below average intelligence,
evidenced by his inability to absorb the necessary training to
effectively execute his assigned duties. A further indication of his
inability to learn was the unusually low score he made on his AFJK
test. Efforts to train the applicant proved to be futile. However,
his inability to learn or to absorb skills is not based entirely upon
low intelligence, but to indifference and a defective attitude. The
applicant’s attitude and performance of duty and general appearance
were noticeably substandard. Also, he is a trouble maker and a bad
influence upon newly assigned airmen within the organization, which
frequently resulted in strained relations with his fellow airmen.
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant since being assigned to his command proved himself to be
untrainable. Every job that the applicant had been assigned required
that he be given the utmost supervision or the job would not be
accomplished; his attitude toward the AF and job knowledge has been
100 percent negative. The applicant seemed to be a constant source
of trouble both on his job and in relations with the other airmen.
The applicant has refused to study his On-the-Job Training (OJT)
manuals and as a result he has not advanced himself in any degree to
be of value to military service.
On 5 February 1958, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and indicated he understood the content of
the letter.
On 7 March 1958, the discharge authority approved the separation and
directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge.
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 16 April 1958 under the
provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability, with an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge. He was credited with 1
year, 7 months and 26 days of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, D.C., 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. 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 D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states all of the
accusations are false. He did study the manuals to try and better his
degrees to operate all the equipment that he was supposed to. He was
never given a chance; there were always accusations that were brought
up such as not getting along with other personnel, no time and
untrainable.
The airman he fought actually had the weapon. When they were
fighting, he managed to pry the weapon away from the airman, which is
the reason the Air Police found the weapon on him.
He stayed from personnel that tried to belittle him. He was well
liked by personnel other than the people mentioned above. He did not
have any vices such as drinking or smoking and was well liked by the
female personnel at the base. This is the main reason this person
hated him and tried to make trouble for him. He was involved in
sports and other activities.
Again, he is requesting the Board reconsider his request to have his
discharge upgraded. He has worked hard through out his life to serve
his family, church, and community to the best of his ability. It is
truly important to him to clear this matter up as he feels that the
incident leading to his discharge was not handled justly. He was not
given the opportunity to defend his actions (Exhibit F).
___________________________________________________________________
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. 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 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. Based on the documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears the processing and the
characterization of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in
accordance with Air Force policy. We have considered the applicant’s
overall quality of service; however, in view of his misconduct while
he was on active duty we do not believe that a discharge upgrade is
warranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00398 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 5 Feb 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Feb 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02646
At that time he was an apprentice administrative helper working in the squadron mail room. An Evaluation Officer’s Report, dated 10 September 1958, indicates the applicant should be discharged due to lack of motivation for performing military service, defective attitude and inability to expend effort. The discharge was also within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01032
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01032 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 SEP 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). As...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03725
On 3 June 1958, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for a general discharge under the Department of the Air Force Letter, Subject: Discharge of Unproductive Airmen, dated 1 December 1955, and Air Force Regulation 39-16, for his apathetic and defective attitudes toward service life and his job, and his inability to expend the necessary effort to make himself a productive airman. The applicant was discharged effective 4 June 1958 with a general (under honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00455
Toward the end of basic training, he received orders. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 9 June 1994, after serving 3 months and 29 days active service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 June 1994, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02245
He appeared before a similar review board to request his discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 7 Mar 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 6 years. On 22 Mar 02, the applicant was issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02346 INDEX CODE 110.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and he be reinstated in the Air Force with reclassification into another career field. Separation was recommended for those airmen who exhibited disciplinary/motivational...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00282
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. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPR recommends the request for the PH be denied. After thoroughly...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02378
The application is dated more than fifteen years after the Article 15 action. The training action to change his AFSC was disapproved and therefore his AFSC should remain 81152 and be documented as such. The AFSC on the EPR is the Duty AFSC (DAFSC), which is the duty position the individual held during the reporting period.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02318
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02318 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, or in the alternative, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00269
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00269 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 AUGUST 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to a honorable discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...