RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00847
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 22 SEPTEMBER 2008
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husband’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her late husband had a successful post-service life. He acquired a law
degree, he worked for a publishing company for 17 years, and he was
appointed as an administrative law judge. He later came out of retirement
to work in a local high school with at-risk children.
In support of her application, the applicant submits a copy of her late
husband’s general discharge certificate, a copy of his educational
allowance letter, a copy of his board of bar examiners letter, a copy of
his appointment notice, a newspaper article and a copy of his death
certificate.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The service-member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 (with
his parent’s consent) in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.
On 31 Mar 58, the service-member’s commander notified him that he was
initiating discharge action against him under AFR 39-17 due to his repeated
offenses.
The service-member received Article 15 action for the following offenses
and on the dates indicated:
(1) Wearing civilian clothing while in BMT on 16 Dec 56.
(2) Failure to obey an order to report to TAC instructor on 17 Dec
56.
(3) Failure to obey supervising NCO’s lawful order to wit: get
chevrons on all uniforms and never report to Orderly Room again without any
on 27 Nov 57.
(4) Reported for pay without chevrons on Class “A” uniform on 30 Nov
57.
He received three court-martial convictions for possession of a false
military pass and two incidents of being absent without leave (AWOL).
The service-member was advised of his rights and provided legal counsel.
He waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and requested
he be discharged without the benefit of board proceedings. The commander
thereafter initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s separation.
In a legal review of the discharge case file the staff judge advocate found
the file was legally sufficient. On 11 Jun 58, the service-member was
discharged because of unfitness and issued an undesirable discharge
certificate. He had served 1 year, 5 months and 11 days on active
duty.
In a similar appeal, the service-member requested his undesirable discharge
be upgraded to honorable by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).
On 15 Jan 73, the AFDRB voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to
general and a new DD 214 was issued.
In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they were unable to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the basis of
information furnished.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states that based on the
documentation on file in the service-member’s 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. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing, and she provided no facts warranting an upgrade of
the service-member’s discharge.
The complete DPPRS 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 6 Apr
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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. 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 office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for the conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 probable 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 this application in Executive
Session on 5 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-00847:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 07 w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Mar 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 07.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00275
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00275 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 JULY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board of officers recommended applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. On 22 Nov 57, applicant submitted an...
He recommended that applicant be discharged from the service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is now retired and a member of the American Legion. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01649
On 25 Nov 58, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicants post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02114
A complete copy of the 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 5 Aug 05 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 05. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01862
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decision by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to deny his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable was unjust. A legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03657
On 25 Oct 61, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman third class. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe the former service member has been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392
On 14 January 2003, the applicant received an LOC for failure to obey an order or regulation. DPPAE states there is no evidence in the applicant’s record to support that the RE code she received is incorrect or that it created an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.
On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02059
The former member's request for upgrade of his discharge from under other than honorable to honorable was considered by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 26 Jul 82. DPPRS indicated that, at the time the Air Force Review Board upgraded the former member's discharge to general, they stated that "further upgrade of the discharge was not appropriate because his records reflect extensive, though minor, acts of misconduct. We note that the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)...