RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02415
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His fraudulent entry into the Air Force and concealment of his
prior service in the United States Navy was not intentional. He
disclosed his service when discussing advancement options with
his commanding officer (CO). His CO gave him a chance to remain
in the service at the same grade or be discharged from the Air
Force to seek civilian options for increased wages. He was not
advised he would be discharged under undesirable conditions. He
respected his Air Force service and would not have left under
these circumstances.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD
Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed
Forces of the United States; and, his DD Form 214, Report of
Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
entered active duty on 2 October 1950 in the grade of private (E-
1) and was promoted to the grade of airman third class (E-2) with
a date of rank of 1 May 1952.
According to an Assistant Adjutant letter, dated 2 January 1953,
the applicant disclosed that he had enlisted in the USN on
17 March 1948 until 24 January 1950; and, that upon reenlistment
in the Air Force, he willfully concealed his prior service in the
USN.
USN records indicate the applicant enlisted in the Navy on
18 March 1948 and was given a general discharge on 24 January
1950 because of inaptitude.
On 25 February 1953, discharge action was initiated with a
recommendation that the applicant be discharged with an
undesirable discharge.
On 3 March 1953, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate indicated
that if recruiting authorities had known about the applicants
prior enlistment and his characterization of discharge from the
USN, it would have made him ineligible for enlistment in the Air
Force.
On 4 March 1953, the discharge authority directed the applicant
be discharged due to fraudulent enlistment and that he be
furnished an undesirable discharge certificate.
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. He served 2 years, 5 months and 12 days on active
duty in the Air Force.
On 28 November 1956, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his
discharge to honorable stating his characterization of discharge
was equitable and proper.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation 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
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. Furthermore, we do
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant
has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service
activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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-2010-02415 in Executive Session on 7 April 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02415:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01700
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 November 1946, prior to the applicant’s enlistment he was convicted by the State of Michigan for unarmed robbery. The applicant enlisted 23 July 1947 at Dearborn, Michigan and, so far as the records, which were available, showed, without having disclosed his past record. The evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04381
Specifically, it was discovered he had a history of migraine headaches. DPSOS states the documentation on file in the master personnel records supports the basis for the discharge and the applicants entry level separation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03769
On 24 Sep 07, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry into the military. This medical condition could have rendered her ineligible to enlist in the Air Force. She provided no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during her discharge processing and she provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04111
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The notification memorandum he received from his commander on 22 Mar 2010 was the first time he heard the term "fraudulent entry." Since the possibility exists the applicant did in fact answer the questions honestly, we recommend any and all references in his record pertaining to fraudulent enlistment" or a preexisting condition...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01760
On 26 Sep 1991, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for Concealment of Other Bars to Enlistment-Medical Conditions in accordance with Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airman. The specific reason for this action was a medical narrative summary, dated 18 Sep 1991, which found the applicant had chronic low back pain secondary to an old compression fracture that he did not disclose on his SF Form 93, Report...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03930
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 5 Jul 11. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02117 ADDENDUM
On 3 November 1948, the applicant was tried and found guilty by a special court-martial for being AWOL from on/or about 9 September 1948 to on/or about 27 September 1948. In support of his request, he submits a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-59, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Undesirable Discharge; and, a letter of support from his spouse. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board determined that there...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04728-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, Board requesting, in effect, that his naval to show a more favorable discharge than the discharge on 30 December 1953. , Petitioner, a (a) applied to this record be corrected undesirable The Board, consisting of Messrs. Milner, Harrison, and Shy 2. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 15 November 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00439
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00439 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (fraudulent entry into military service), the corresponding separation code of JDA, and his reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02476
On 6 Dec 12, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commanders recommendation, directing the applicant be issued an entry-level separation with a basis for discharge of fraudulent entry. The applicants commander notified him on 5 Dec 12 he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for entry-level separation (Fraudulent Entry) for deliberately concealing a prior service medical condition. The following documentary evidence...