RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01101
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharged be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was only one or two days from the date his suspension would have
been over. He didn’t hire a military attorney. He was young at that
age and was still on duty during the Vietnam War. He is ill and dying
and feels he has matured 32 years later.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of a 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 in the Regular Air Force on 1 June 1972. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of Airman First Class with a date
of rank (DOR) of 14 March 1973. On 28 March 1974, he was given an
Article 15 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 14-18 March
1974. He was demoted to the grade of airman, sentence suspended until
15 May 1974. The suspension was vacated on 24 April 1974 for his
failure to repair on 5, 8 and 9 April 1974 and he was demoted to the
grade of airman with a DOR of 24 April 1974. On 24 September 1974, as
a result of a Special Court Martial proceeding, he was charged with
wrongfully being in possession of 627 grams, more or less, of
marijuana on 24 May 1974. He changed his not guilty plea to guilty
and was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confined for 5
months from 30 July 1974 to 4 December 1974, forfeited $100 per month
for 5 months and reduced to airman basic. The BCD was suspended until
4 June 1974. He was discharged on 30 May 1975 after having served 2
years, 7 months, and 17 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
None. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his
discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10. Nor has he
shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or
disproportionate to the offenses committed. At the time of the
applicant’s discharge, the issuance of an undesirable, general, or
honorable discharge was outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See
Exhibit C). Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the
Board has the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if
so inclined.
Attached at Exhibit D is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force
Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of
characterization of service and how standards have changed since
1959.
_________________________________________________________________
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 discharge
proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was
appropriate to 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, the events which
precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to post-
service activities and accomplishments. Based on the evidence of
record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Applicant
has not provided sufficient information of post-service activities
and accomplishments for us to conclude that applicant has overcome
the behavioral traits which caused the discharge. Should applicant
provide statements from community leaders and acquaintances
attesting to applicant's 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2007-01101 in Executive Session on 16 August 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Excerpt, AFR 39-10.
Exhibit D. Memo, AFBCMR Legal Advisor, dated 17 Apr 07.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01099
The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01244
The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). DPPPWB states the application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2303, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, (AFBCMR) paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. He gives no reason for his delay in petitioning the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01801
On 29 March 1989, the discharge authority directed he be discharged with a general discharge. On 1 December 1989, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-01801 in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair Ms....
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00797
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00797 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 16 AUGUST 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01222
He remained in the WMP for a period of 2 years and 10 months, during which time he received 2 LORS, control roster action, and demotion to the grade of sergeant for his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards. His military medical records indicate that during two separate separation physical examinations he was found medically qualified for separation and had described his health as very good, with no health problems. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02329
He received an Article 15, dated 11 January 1956, for failure to go to his place of duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/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 following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2005-02329 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03451
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI provided a copy of an Investigative Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit B. However, in view of the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuasive that his discharge warrants an upgrade based on clemency. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00727
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00727 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions (UHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness, (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00993
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00993 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 OCT 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed; however, it appears that his request is to have his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3D (second term or...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771
In addition, based on his overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Air Force Regulation 39-17A.