RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01189
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was no reason he should have received a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
extracts from his master personnel records, a discharge review
fact sheet, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating
decision, correspondence to and from the DVA, the United States
Army, the North Carolina American Legion, and a DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed
Forces of the United States.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available records reflect the applicant entered the Regular Air
Force on 30 November 1951.
In March 1952, the applicant requested discharge for the
convenience of the government based on physical defects which
were disqualifying for retention and existed prior to service.
However, on 31 March 1952, his request was denied and on
25 April 1952, he was found fit for return to full duty.
On 4 June 1954, the applicant was notified of pending discharge
action. Specifically, the commander cited unfitness as the
basis for discharge. The applicant was given a complete
physical and mental examination and no physical or mental
defects were diagnosed. He waived his entitlement to a board
hearing.
On 15 July 54, the applicant was discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, states they
were unable to identify an arrest record on the basis of the
information furnished.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. We find
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. Therefore, we conclude that
the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of
the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. In
view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the
requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number
BC-2010-01189 in Executive Session on 30 March 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket
Number BC-2010-01189:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 19 Mar and 7 Jul 10,
w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01188
AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 20 Jun 08 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01189 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was in Vietnam for approximately 31 days on TDY from Okinawa, sometime around May...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00586
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00586 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request for a medical discharge. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01547
On 24 July 2000, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge for erroneous enlistment under the authority of Air Force Personnel Directive 36-32 and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.14 under Basis for Erroneous Enlistment. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing; nor, did he provide any facts warranting a change to his...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00446
The Board finds no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's 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. Accordingly, we find that corrective action is appropriate on the basis of clemency and recommend the records be corrected as indicated below.
The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the double- curve thoracic scoliosis, dislocated and fractured thoracic vertebra, and lumbar scoliosis with tilted vertebra were there prior to service. None of his Air Force physicals indicated any EPTS spinal conditions. Applicant provided another statement in which...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02701
Further, it must be noted the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. After using these functional capabilities to determine the individuals level of impairment in social and industrial/occupational environments, a mental condition will then be characterized as mild, definite/moderate, considerable, severe, or total; with a disability rating of 10, 30, 50, 70 or 100 percent. The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03053
On 9 July 1981, he failed to report at the scheduled time to his appointed place of duty, for which he was counseled on 9 July 1981. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 October 2005 for review and response within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00545 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 20 June 1952, the applicant appeared before a Board of Officers to determine if he should be discharged...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04216
On 6 February 1997, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge characterization. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 June 11, w/atchs.