Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03108
Original file (BC-2008-03108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03108
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  None
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his  DD  Form  214,
Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 24 Feb  54  for  a  period  of  4
years.

On 3  Jun  57,  the  applicant’s  commander  recommended  the  applicant  be
required to appear before a board of officers convened under the  provisions
of AFR 39-17, to determine whether he  should  be  discharged  from  service
prior to the expiration  of  his  current  term  of  enlistment  because  of
unfitness.

The reasons for the action were as follows:

      He was absent without  leave  (AWOL)  from  8-25  Jun  54.   For  this
offense, he was confined to hard labor for 30 days and  ordered  to  forfeit
$50.

      On 27 Nov 56, he received an Article 15 for failure to go.   For  this
offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman second class.

      On 11 Jan 57, he  was  tried  and  convicted  by  a  civil  court  for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
      On 26 Feb 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to go.   For  this
offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman third class.

The applicant was advised of his rights.  He waived his  right  to  a  board
hearing and submitted his application for discharge.

On  13  Jun  57,  the  assistant  Staff  Judge  Advocate   recommended   the
applicant’s application for discharge be accepted and that he be  discharged
with an undesirable discharge.

He was discharged on 21 Jun 57.  He  served  for  a  period  of  3 years,  1
month, and 24 days.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR POST-SERVICE AND FBI REPORT:

The applicant submits one character reference letter.

The complete response is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 sufficient  to  compel  us
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 19 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Michele M. Rachie, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  under  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2008-03108:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 08, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C   FBI Report.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jan 09.
      Exhibit E.  Reference Letter, not dated.




                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900471

    Original file (9900471.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-01583

    Original file (BC-2008-01583.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was addicted to marijuana for many years of his life. 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. Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Jun 08, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02038

    Original file (BC-2007-02038.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02038 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant on 17 October 2007 for review and response within 30 days (See Exhibit D). We considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00785

    Original file (BC-2008-00785.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00785 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03129

    Original file (BC-2008-03129.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 April 1986, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for misconduct – drug abuse, with a general service characterization. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-03129 in Executive Session on 29 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02668

    Original file (BC-2008-02668.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS At the time he was disciplined, he requested that he be discharged and was subsequently rendered a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02668 in Executive Session on 16 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02258

    Original file (BC-2008-02258.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02258 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02666

    Original file (BC-2008-02666.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS During the time he was in the Air Force, it was very difficult for Blacks. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02666 in Executive Session on 16 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02502

    Original file (BC-2008-02502.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was later told he would not meet the board for at least six months and unless he signed the waiver he would spend the next six months waiting for the board in jail. He was 22 years of age at the time and had less than six months left on his four year tour. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02367

    Original file (BC-2003-02367.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Staff Judge Advocate’s statement concerning his appeal of an Article 15 he received on 17 Jan 85 made reference to another airman who was being discharged at the same time and did not pertain to him. On 26 Feb 85, the office of the Staff Judge Advocate found no errors or irregularities in the discharge case file and recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 5 Jun 87, the...