Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03155
Original file (BC-2008-03155.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02936

    Original file (BC-2007-02936.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2014 02072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 husband’s 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

    Original file (BC-2012-04127.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 decedent’s 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

    Original file (BC-2011-02547.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2011-02287.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2013-00961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She made several inquiries in regards to the decedent’s 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

    Original file (BC 2013 00961.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She made several inquiries in regards to the decedent’s 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

    Original file (BC-2012-04928.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2014 00704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-01802.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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....