RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02230
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His mothers undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general
(under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His mother received an undesirable discharge based on the fact
that she was pregnant. At the time of her separation, she was
unwed and pregnant. She later married the babys father who was
an Air Force serviceman. If this happened today, the service
member would be able to continue service or be granted a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge. The nature of his
mothers service was honorable.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement, a copy of his mothers DD Form 214, Report of
Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; copies of
her training records; and Power of Attorney documents.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The service member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 July
1952. She was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2)
with a date of rank of 22 August 1952.
On 3 July 1953, the service member received Article 15 punishment
for failure to report for Charge of Quarters Duty in violation of
Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 21 July
1953, the service member received summary court-martial
punishment for breaking building restriction in violation of
Article 143, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of reduction in rank
to airman basic (E-1), restriction to the confines of the
installation for 60 days, and forfeiture of $55 pay. On
10 August 1953, the service member received special court-martial
punishment for stealing a billfold and contents of some value
less than $20, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Her punishment
consisted of confinement at hard labor for two months and
forfeiture of $30 pay per month for two months.
On 17 September 1953, the service member was notified by her
commander that a board of officers had been appointed under the
provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-17, to consider her
retention in the service or possible discharge as a result of her
infractions of regulations and low efficiency rating. The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected to
waive her right to counsel, witnesses, and any waiting period
before meeting the board. The Board findings and recommendation,
dated 18 September 1953, indicates the board found evidence that
the service member had traits which rendered her retention in the
service undesirable. The board recommended she be discharged
from the service because of unfitness with an undesirable
discharge. On 8 October 1953, the discharge authority approved
the findings and recommendations of the board.
On 28 October 1953, the applicant was released from active duty
with an undesirable characterization of service in the grade of
airman basic. She served 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days on active
duty.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the FBI indicated that on the
basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest
record pertaining to the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2010-02230 in Executive Session on 3 March 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-2010-02230:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 July 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01109
For this incident, he was tried and convicted by a summary court-martial and sentenced to be confined to hard labor for 26 days, and to forfeit $50.00. On 28 December 1979, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts warranting a...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00848
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00848 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The Board recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02783
On 10 Dec 70, the Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) reviewed the case and recommended disapproval stating there was insufficient justification to support a waiver of the one year ADSC. In the interest of justice, 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00763
On 25 February 1954, the Air Force Board of Review approved the findings and sentence as adjudged. Specifically, Section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has failed to provide any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00206 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge. On or about 1 October 1952, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 12 February 1957, the Air Force Discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01777
Although the discharge was properly processed according to the applicable regulation, the applicant's discharge record indicates his discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy; however, there were aggravating factors. In a memorandum, dated 20 Sep 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense published guidance that Service Discharge Review Boards should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge, separation code, re-characterize the discharge to Honorable,...
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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00709
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00709 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Because her approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the applicant’s conviction and, on 31 October...