RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02395
(DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE
(BROTHER) HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The deceased former members discharge be upgraded from
Undesirable to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS CONTEND THAT:
He did not know the deceased former member had an undesirable
discharge until after he had passed away. He was a wonderful
individual.
In support of the request, the applicant provides copies of
excerpts from the deceased former members military personnel
records; birth, marriage, and death certificates; Social
Security and Medicare cards; certificate of church membership;
and documents related to his retirement from Firestone.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The deceased former members military personnel records were
apparently located in the area most heavily damaged in the fire
at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973.
According to documents provided by the applicant, the deceased
former member served on active duty from 20 Aug 51 through
29 Jun 54, when he was furnished an Undesirable discharge and
credited with three years, six months, and ten days of total
active service.
On 6 Jan 55, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
notified the former member of their determination that the
evidence he submitted as part of his application to upgrade his
discharge was insufficient to warrant a change in the type and
nature of his discharge.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report
indicating they were unable to locate an arrest record on the
basis of the information provided.
A request for post-service information was forwarded to the
applicant on 4 Oct 10 (Exhibit C). In response, the deceased
former members daughter requested the deceased former members
brother be allowed to pursue the instant request as the deceased
former members spouse had passed away (Exhibit D). The
applicant requested the case be administratively closed until
such time that he was prepared to proceed (Exhibit E). On
12 Mar 12, the applicant requested that his deceased brothers
case be reopened (Exhibit G). In support of his response, he
provides an expanded statement and copies of five supporting
statements.
________________________________________________________________
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 injustice. We note the
deceased former members military personnel records are not
available for our review as they were apparently located in the
area most heavily damaged in the fire at the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. Therefore, the facts surrounding
his separation and character of service could not be verified.
However, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct
of governmental affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we
must assume that his discharge, to include his service
characterization and narrative reason for separation, were
proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was
effected. The applicant has provided no evidence which would
lead us to believe the characterization of the deceased former
members service was contrary to the provisions of the governing
regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses
committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading
the discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find
the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend
granting the relief sought on that basis at this time.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend favorable consideration of the
application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02395 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Oct 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Nov 10.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Nov 10.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Mar 12, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03076
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03076 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMERSERVICE MEMBER) (APPLICANT) HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late-husbands undesirable discharge be upgraded to a honorable discharge. She further noted the service member was very young when he joined the Air Force. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00391
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00391
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly manipulated into signing divorce papers just prior to her husbands death by her ex-husbands son-in-law to deny her his SBP benefits. Upon retirement, he elected spouse only SBP coverage for his wife at that time. The law is very specific in that legal documentation must be provided that reflects the member agreed, or the court ordered, the member to establish former spouse coverage.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04213
The statute requires the Secretary concerned to issue a POW medal to any person who was taken prisoner and held captive by foreign armed forces that are hostile to the United States, under circumstances which the Secretary finds to have been comparable to those under which persons have generally been held captive by enemy armed forces during periods of armed conflict. Finally, while the claim the Secretary of the Air Force has made no such finding about whether internees of Switzerland meet...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05721
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05721 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05721
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05721 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04920
DPSID states that there is no documentation verifying the applicant served in Korea; therefore, he is not eligible based on the governing Department of Defense (DoD) instructions. The applicant provides a letter from a former servicemember indicating that they served together at Osan Air Base, Korea. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00833
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00833 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Undesirable Discharge be upgraded to honorable. In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were followed. Applicant's Available...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01996
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01996 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His deceased fathers records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal and the Bronze Star Medal (BSM). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we do not find the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01518
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...