RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00446
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He just wanted to help during wartime. His service work was
uniformly excellent and he has lived with this stigma long
enough.
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his
appeal.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty from 1 February 1951 thorough 31 January
1952.
On 23 January 1952, the applicant was evaluated by Neurology for
having convulsive episodes. The evaluation revealed the
applicant had a history of seizures since age 12; and, that he
concealed it on the medical history form of his enlistment
record. On 25 January 1952, his commander recommended the
applicant be administratively separated from the service under
the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-21, paragraph 7. The
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the
applicant be separated with a general discharge, in accordance
with Air Force Regulation 39-21B, paragraph 10b.
On 31 January 1952, the applicant was released from active duty
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. According
to his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States, the reason for his separation was indicated as
Fraudulent entry into service, concealment of physical defect.
He served one year on active duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis of the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record
pertaining to the applicant.
On 29 April 2010, the applicant was given the opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit C).
In response the applicant provided a personal statement, a copy
of his resume, and two character references.
The applicants response, with attachments, is at 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. The Board finds no impropriety in the characterization of
applicant's discharge. It appears that responsible officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we
do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were
violated or that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to
which entitled at the time of discharge. The applicant has not
shown the characterization of the discharge was contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulation, nor has it been shown the
nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to
the offenses committed. Considered alone, we conclude the
discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the
discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
4. Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the
events which precipitated the discharge. We have a Congressional
mandate which permits consideration of other factors; e.g.,
applicant's background, the overall quality of service, and post-
service activities and accomplishments. Further, we may base our
decision on matters of equity and clemency rather than simply on
whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were
followed. This is a much broader consideration than officials
involved in the discharge were permitted, and our decision in no
way discredits the validity of theirs.
5. Taking into consideration the available post-service
information, it appears likely that the applicant has led a
stable and productive life since the separation. We recognize
the adverse impact of the discharge the applicant received; and,
while it may have been appropriate at the time, we believe it
would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer its
effects. Accordingly, we find that corrective action is
appropriate on the basis of clemency and recommend the records be
corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 31 January
1952, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable
Discharge certificate.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 13 October 2010, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-
00446 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 10.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 May 10, w/atchs.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02415
On 13 March 1953, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the authority of Air Force Regulation 39-21, for fraudulent entry into the Air Force by concealment of prior service. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04042
On 17 January 1955, following the Judge Advocates finding that the case was legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the applicants discharge under the provision of AFR 39-17 and directed he be discharged with an undesirable discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 13 days of active duty with 380 days lost time. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00446
The discharge authority approved the request for discharge (in lieu of court- martial) and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 22 August 1984. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions...
Without a copy of the orders, they cannot verify that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 June 1998 for review and response. After reviewing the limited military personnel records and the applicant’s submission, it appears that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00446
Without a copy of the orders, they cannot verify that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 June 1998 for review and response. After reviewing the limited military personnel records and the applicant’s submission, it appears that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00706
On 29 June 1955, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability, with a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 July 1955, he was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02055 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01465
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01465 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 29 October 1953, the discharge authority approved the separation recommended by the Board of Officers and directed that applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00982
On 25 June 1952, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a request for the applicant to appear before a Board of Officers, under the provisions of AFR 39-16, to determine if he was inapt or unsuitable for further retention in the United States Air Force (as indicated in a report by a psychiatrist). The applicant was present, and it is indicated in the proceedings that he expressed his desire to be discharged from the service. He stated he did not desire a copy of the board record...