RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03155
INDEX CODE: 106.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to
“honorable.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and made an error in judgment but served honorably and
proudly during the two years he served and had this not occurred, he would
have made a career in the Reserve.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s military record is not available; therefore, the facts
surrounding his separation cannot be verified.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
This application is being considered without an advisory.
_________________________________________________________________
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. While the applicant contends he received
a general discharge sometime during July 1986, he has provided no evidence
to show how or when he was discharged. Based upon the presumption of
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to
the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and
in compliance with appropriate directives
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-2008-
03155 in Executive Session on 3 December 2009, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit: DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 08.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02936
We conclude therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 September 2007, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02072
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02072 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husbands Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). 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 C....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04127
On 23 May 1961, the decedent submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. Prior to the incident that led to the decedents separation, he served honorably for a period of approximately eight years. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that on 2 Dec 1960, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02547
In view of the fact that the deceased former service member was eligible for retired pay at age 60, the applicant is eligible for an ID card, Base Exchange and Commissary privileges. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02287
The applicant states that on 25 Mar 04, she and the decedent had gone to a Air National Guard post to update their marital status in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS). We further note the applicant signed for the package sent to the now deceased former member notifying him of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00961
She made several inquiries in regards to the decedents elected survivor benefits, only to be told each time that she was not eligible due to his type of retirement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating the decedent was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00961
She made several inquiries in regards to the decedents elected survivor benefits, only to be told each time that she was not eligible due to his type of retirement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating the decedent was...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04928
The Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) records indicate that the deceased former member was married to his former spouse on 26 Dec 68 and elected spouse only SBP coverage for her prior to his 1 Jun 82 retirement. However, the former service member died five days before the first anniversary of their marriage, rendering the applicant ineligible to receive an SBP annuity as she did not meet the criteria set forth in the governing statute to qualify for an SBP annuity. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00704
He submitted DD Form 1882, for former spouse and child coverage; however, DFAS-CL did not honor the election because it was not received until after the one-year eligibility period. However, while the applicant contends the election for former spouse coverage was made within the required time, no evidence has been provided, to our satisfaction, that she or the deceased former member submitted a valid former spouse election during the first year following their divorce. THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01802
His commander agreed to impose non-judicial punishment and discharge him. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find no evidence which indicates that the decedent’s service characterization, which had its basis in his conviction by special court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Exhibit B....