RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01303 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or 
general (under honorable conditions). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her husband’s “discharge for unfitness,” should be reflected as 
an honorable discharge, because his unfitness was accepted upon 
entry into the Air Force. He has been a productive citizen in 
his community and was utilizing the skills he learned in the Air 
Force to help those in his community. However, his work in the 
community led to his declining health issues and his spouse now 
seeks assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and letters of support from the medical providers. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Aug 54 
for a period of four years. 

 

He received an Article 15 for failure to repair on 20 Dec 54. 
His punishment was a reprimand. He was convicted by a Summary 
Court-Martial, on 2 Mar 55, for being absent without leave 
(AWOL), from 19 Feb – 1 Mar 55. His punishment consisted of 
reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1/AB), confinement 
with hard labor (CHL) for 30 days, and forfeiture of $50.00. He 
was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial, on 27 May 55, for 
wrongfully using provoking language toward a sentinel in the 
execution of his duty. His punishment was CHL for 10 days. He 
received an Article 15, on 14 Jan 56, for failure to repair, 
which consisted of a punishment of 14 days of extra duty. He 
was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial, on 27 Feb 56, for 


failure to go. His punishment consisted of CHL for 10 days and 
forfeiture of $50.00. 

 

He waived his right to an administrative hearing by a board of 
officers and he further acknowledged that he understood if his 
application was approved, his separation could be under 
conditions other than honorable, he could receive an undesirable 
discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a veteran 
under both federal and state legislation. 

 

The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, on 30 Apr 56, with 
service characterized as undesirable. He was credited with 
1 year, 8 months and 10 days of active duty service. 

 

On 19 Sep 60, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the 
Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB 
considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of 
his undesirable discharge. They concluded the discharge was 
equitable and proper (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an 
investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

On 4 Nov 10, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the 
applicant for comment. At that time, he was also invited to 
provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since 
leaving the service (Exhibit D). The applicant’s case was 
considered by the Board on 2 Dec 10, but held in abeyance 
pending his response to the evaluation. However, as of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 during the discharge process. 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. 


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. The evidence 
clearly shows the former member was administratively separated 
from active duty based on his repetitive misconduct which 
subsequently led to his unfitness for continued military 
service. The applicant provides a personal statement and 
letters of support on the former member’s behalf to have his 
discharge upgraded based on clemency; however, considering his 
overall record of service, the seriousness of the offenses which 
led to his administrative separation, and the FBI Report of 
Investigation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the 
characterization of his discharge is warranted. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon 
which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-01303 in Executive Session on 2 December 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair