RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00704
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was the victim of downsizing and frozen ranks with over
24 months timein-grade for airman second class, and was
encouraged by his superiors to accept an early out. The advice
from his superiors was wrong. This injustice ruined his dream of
becoming a career airman and musician in the United States Air
Force.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD
Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 19 July 1957 and was promoted to the grade
of airman third class (E-2) with a date of rank of 2 October
1957.
On 24 September 1959, his commander recommended the applicant be
discharged under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-16,
Section B, with a general discharge. The reason for the
applicants recommended discharge was his inability to progress
normally in his career field; evident disregard for rank and
authority; and negative attitude towards the military service.
The appointed Evaluation Officer endorsed the commanders
recommendation indicating the applicant be separated from the
service with a general discharge as the applicants file
contained numerous instances and indications of a definite
pattern of misbehavior and lack of duty performance. The Staff
Judge Advocate found the case to be legally sufficient on
1 October 1959. On 7 October 1959, the discharge authority
approved the recommended discharge and directed the applicant be
discharged with a general discharge certificate under the
authority of Air Force Regulation 39-16, Section B.
The applicant was discharged effective 14 October 1959 with a
general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.
He served 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days on active duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an
Investigation Report (Exhibit C). On 29 April 2010, a copy of
the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and
comment within 30 days, and he was given the opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities (Exhibit D).
On 7 May 2010, the applicant responded with a resume of his post
service activities, employment history, and a letter of support
from his spouse.
The applicants complete response, with attachment, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00704 in Executive Session on 21 October 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00704:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Apr 10, atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 May 10, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00289
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00289 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JULY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04101
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04101 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 31 January 2008, the Board staff requested the applicant provide documentation pertaining to his post-service activities, within 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03596
On 23 June 1957, he was honorably discharged and on 24 June 1957, reenlisted in the RegAF for a period of four years. In an application, dated 13 August 1972, he requested his discharge be upgraded to one under honorable conditions. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 13 August 1959, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00039
Between February and September 1961, the applicant was counseled six times; three for failing to report for duty on time, once for failing to keep his room in inspection order, and twice for failing to report for duty. On 4 October 1961, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman basic. We have considered the applicants overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00704
They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting a change to his character of service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Mar 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03029
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who entered active duty on 23 March 1982 in the grade of airman (E- 2). On 19 April 1983, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00652
He received two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 16 October 1956 and 10 December 1956, in which the overall evaluations were “excellent.” The applicant’s discharge case file has been lost or destroyed. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 18 June 1958. On 22 April 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 30 days (Exhibit E).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02694
He had served 1 year, 2 months and 6 days on active service with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL. On 17 March 1959, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded so that he may enter active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02110
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. However, they concluded applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02240
On 23 Jun 58, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Therefore, the Board Majority recommends the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency.