RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01161
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because of his hardship deferment.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has never been in trouble before or after the incident that led to his discharge. In May 1970, his local County Board notified him that his selective service number was classified 3A, which he understood to mean a hardship deferment. Therefore, he thought his military service was no longer characterized as UOTHC.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, and a County Veterans Service cover letter.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 December 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic. He was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) effective and with a date of rank of 20 February 1963. On 31 October 1963, the applicant appeared in the Municipal Court of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and pled guilty to the offense of stealing three tires in the value of $95. On 4 November 1963, he was fined $100 and ordered to pay court costs in lieu of being sentenced to 15 days in jail.
On 8 November 1963, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-22. On 12 November 1963, the applicant acknowledged his commanders intent, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 29 November 1963, after the Staff Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicants discharge and directed he be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate.
The applicant was discharged effective 6 December 1963 with an UOTHC discharge. He served 11 months and 9 days on active duty.
On 14 April 1965, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the FBI indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record pertaining to the applicant.
On 8 May 2009, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C). The applicant responded with a personal statement and several letters of character reference (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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficiently compelling to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive Session on 1 July 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-03239:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 09.
Exhibit D. Applicants Rebuttal, dated 27 May 09, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00502
On 6 November 1964, the discharge authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with an undesirable discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Exhibit C. FBI Report.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01667
Applicant re-enlisted on 5 Dec 55 for a period of four years. By letter, dated 27 Jul 09, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX County Veterans Service Officer, attests to the applicant’s good character, eluding to his struggle with alcohol and citing the lack of help for alcoholics in “the old days” (Exhibit F). The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-01667 in Executive Session on 1 Sep 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00571
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00571 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00415
On 18 Feb 83, the Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and approved the sentence as adjudged, although it reassessed the sentence and found appropriate only so much of the sentence that extended to a BCD, confinement for two months, forfeiture of $125.00 pay per month for four months and reduction to the grade of E-1. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01414 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 3 November 1971, the applicant volunteered for rehabilitation under the United States Air Force Drug Abuse Program. The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03572
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03572 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MAY 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 4 December 1964, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01054
There is no evidence of error or injustice in his records; nor, did he provide any evidence to support a change to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicants request to change his separation code. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing; nor, did he provide any facts warranting a change to his separation code.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2009 01054
There is no evidence of error or injustice in his records; nor, did he provide any evidence to support a change to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicants request to change his separation code. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing; nor, did he provide any facts warranting a change to his separation code.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00811
On 1 March 1974, the applicant was discharged from active duty with an UOTHC discharge. He served 3 years, 6 months, and 28 days on active duty. On 25 February 1975 and 5 May 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants requests to upgrade his characterization of discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03409
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-03409 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant’s request is unclear; however, it appears he is requesting his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded so that he can seek help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). On...