RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02936
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband’s discharge be changed from undesirable to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband was too young at the time to accept discipline. She notes
all the decedent’s records are gone.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the
decedent’s death certificate and his DD Form 214, Report of Separation
from the Armed Forces of the United States.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Decedent enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 September 1952. His
DD Form 214 indicates he was demoted to the grade of airman basic
effective and with a date of rank of 27 April 1954. He served for 1
year, 11 months, and 20 days - 78 days of which were considered lost
time. He was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 15 November
1954.
An FBI report was provided that shows one charge occurring in August,
1958. He received a sentence of two years probation (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
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. Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs and with virtually no evidence to the contrary,
we must assume that the decedents discharge was proper and in
compliance with appropriate directives. The decedents DD Form 214
was provided, and however sparse, the information included therein
does appear to indicate that responsible officials applied
appropriate standards in effecting the separation at the time. We
conclude therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and
the 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. No
evidence of any kind was presented relating to any post-service
activities and deeds the decedent may have accomplished after his
discharge and prior to his death. Based on the evidence of record,
we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. The applicant has
not provided sufficient information of the post-service activities
of her deceased spouse and his accomplishments for us to conclude
that the decedent overcame the behavioral traits which led to his
discharge. Should the applicant provide statements from community
leaders and acquaintances attesting to her deceased husbands good
character and reputation and other evidence of successful post-
service rehabilitation, this Board will reconsider this case based
on the new evidence. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, we
do not recommend approval.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2007-02936 in Executive Session on 3 January 2008, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-02936.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 September 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. FBI Report, dated 19 October 2007.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03625
However, in the event the applicant provides the required document, an amended death certificate, it would be appropriate to correct the decedent’s records to show the applicant was the eligible spouse beneficiary upon his death. A spouse’s eligibility to receive an SBP annuity terminates upon divorce. However, to date, the applicant has not provided an amended death certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00869
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPPTR states the decedent elected spouse only coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement, and the applicant concurred in his election. The available evidence indicates that the applicant’s husband elected SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay prior to his 1 March 1989 retirement.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01227
There is no evidence of Air Force error or injustice in this case. 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 our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02236
The now-deceased member received a refund of premiums he paid following his divorce from the applicant. He made no attempt to re-establish applicant’s SBP coverage by electing “former spouse” coverage after receipt of the refund and their divorce decree was silent regarding SBP coverage. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2005-02236 in Executive Session on 27 October 2005, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02793
Furthermore, Section V of the DD Form 2656-2 clearly instructed members to have their spouses’ signature notarized if not signed in front of an SBP counselor prior to submitting the form. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: It is evident to her that the DD Form 2656-2 was not completed properly due to a discrepancy between the date of their signatures and the date it was notarized. In their previous advisory, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02383
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding both the AFDRB and AFBCMR decisions, and the rationale of the earlier decisions, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E. Subsequent to the AFBCMR decision, the applicant’s sister, having been appointed conservator of his estate, has submitted an application on behalf of her brother, requesting reconsideration. __________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01570
He told her that her husband was making SBP payments and therefore she should have been receiving an annuity after his death. DPPTR states there is no basis in law to waive the two-year survival requirement; however, if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, the record could be corrected to show the member elected spouse only SBP coverage based on full-retired pay on 27 July 1977, prior to the first marriage anniversary. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03149
They were told the cost for SBP would be 50 percent of her husband’s retired pay. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force states the former member and the applicant were married and that Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) records indicate the member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Oct 84 retirement. Novel, Member Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2003-03852A
There was no evidence in the servicemember’s records to indicate that either the servicemember or the applicant submitted an election to change the SBP coverage from spouse to former spouse. Counsel's complete response is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-CL/DGM states the applicant relies on the Holt and King cases to support her request for award of an SBP annuity. The King case is also of little impact...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03923
In support of her request, the applicant has submitted a copy of her late husband’s death certificate, and a copy of a letter from the National Personnel Records Center dated 12 November 2003. Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing, nor provide facts that support upgrading the discharge to honorable (Exhibit C). Novel, Panel Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 03, with attachments.