Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01366
Original file (BC-2007-01366.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01366
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Nov 05, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not  know  how  important  it  was  to  try  and  get  his  discharge
corrected.

He tried some time ago to get his discharge upgraded but due to the fire  in
St. Louis, he was unable to get any satisfaction.

At the time of the incident, he was tricked into  saying  the  wrong  thing,
when he was not guilty.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records were destroyed in the  1973  fire  at  the  National
Personnel  Records  Center  (NPRC).    However,   partial   documents   were
recovered.

The records reflect that applicant entered active duty Air Force on  18  Oct
60.

The applicant’s records indicate  he  was  convicted  by  a  Summary  Court-
Martial and received a sentence of 25 days hard labor  and  a  reduction  in
grade to airman basic.  He was released from confinement on 13 Jun 62.

Additionally,  on  28  Aug  62,  the  applicant,  along  with  three   other
individuals,  was  tried  and  convicted   by   Special   Court-Martial   of
participating in a breach of the peace by wrongfully overturning bar  stools
and threatening patrons of a bar and committing assault  upon  a  patron  by
breaking his arm with an automobile bumper jack.

The applicant was  sentenced  with  a  bad  conduct  discharge,  hard  labor
confinement for three months, and forfeiture of  $28  per  month  for  three
months.  However, the convening authority only approved confinement at  hard
labor for three months and forfeiture of $28 per month for three months.

The applicant had 103 days lost time and was discharged with a UOTHC  on  21
Dec 62, under the provisions of AFR 39-17.

Pursuant to the Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation
provided a copy of an Investigative Report, Number 53425ID,  which  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

None.  The applicant has not shown the  characterization  of  his  discharge
was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because  of
Unfitness, (copy attached as Exhibit D).  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, AFR 39-17,  paragraph
8,  stated  that  when  discharged  because  of  unfitness,  an  Undesirable
Discharge (UD) will be furnished unless the particular  circumstances  in  a
given case warrants a general  or  honorable  discharge.  Criteria  for  the
issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable discharge is  outlined  in
paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit  E).   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 F 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 over the years.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE FBI REPORT:

A copy of the FBI Report was forwarded to the applicant  on  5  Jun  07  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  G).   As  of  this  date,  this
office has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustice
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to his under other than honorable conditions discharge.   Based  on
the documentation on  file  in  the  master  personnel  records  (MPR),  the
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the  discharge
regulation.  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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-01366
in Executive Session on 19 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/Atchs, dated 9 Jun 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Extract, AFR 39-17.
    Exhibit E.  Extract AFR 39-10.
    Exhibit F.  AFBCMR Letter, w/Atchs, dated 5 Jun 07.
    Exhibit G.  SAF/MRB Legal Opinion, dated 17 Apr 07.




                                   Michael K. Gallogly
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255

    Original file (BC-2004-01255.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01267

    Original file (BC-2004-01267.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board recommend that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-17 and he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge certificate. On 19 November 1951, the discharge authority reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Board of Officers, and approved the discharge recommendation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00130

    Original file (BC-2006-00130.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was again placed in confinement until 19 April 1954. The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01465

    Original file (BC-2004-01465.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01465 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 October 1953, the discharge authority approved the separation recommended by the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00571

    Original file (BC-2004-00571.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (Exhibit D). Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts to support changing the character of his service. Although the applicant completed the term of his enlistment contract, we are aware that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01346

    Original file (BC-2004-01346.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (Exhibit D). Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts to support changing the character of his service. Although the applicant completed the term of his enlistment contract, we are aware that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00991

    Original file (BC-2007-00991.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 November 1952, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-22 for a conviction by a civil court. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-22, Enlisted Personnel, Disposition of Individuals Convicted by Civil Court (Exhibit D). The applicant in response to the FBI report submitted a letter clarifying the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04042

    Original file (BC 2007 04042.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 January 1955, following the Judge Advocate’s finding that the case was legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provision of AFR 39-17 and directed he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 13 days of active duty with 380 days lost time. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201010

    Original file (0201010.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01010 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01684

    Original file (BC-2011-01684.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01684 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 May 58, 18 Dec 62 and 4 May 67, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. At the same time, the applicant was offered an opportunity...