RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01327
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His discharge be upgraded to honorable
2. His rank of airman first class be restored with pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and states his
discharge was too harsh. He was discharged with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder and granted 100 percent disability.
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of
letters to and from the United States Senate.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 8 Aug 61, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of
1 Feb 66.
On 25 May 67, he was reduced to the grade of airman basic by a
summary court-martial for violation of Article 86, Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL)
for a period of 31 days.
On 21 Jul 67, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of
AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal
Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good
of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program,
for Expiration Term of Service (ETS). He served a total of
5 years, 10 months and 13 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicants request for restoration
of his rank to airman first class be time barred. DPSOE states
the application was not filed within the three-year limitation
imposed by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3.5, 1 Mar 96.
DPSOE notes the applicants request may also be dismissed under
the equitable doctrine of laches which denies relief to one who
has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting a claim.
DPSOE notes laches consists of two elements -- inexcusable delay
and prejudice to the Air Force resulting there from. The
applicant waited almost 44 years after his discharge before he
petitioned the AFBCMR.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 17 Jun 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 regarding the
applicants request to restore his grade to airman first class.
We note the applicants reduction in grade was part of the
sentence he received as a result of conviction by a summary court
martial. Although the applicant asserts the punishment he
received was excessively harsh considering his condition, he has
not provided evidence to show that he was incapable of
distinguishing right from wrong and should not have been held
accountable for his misconduct. Regarding his request for
upgrade of his discharge, although the applicant states he
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, his
records indicate he was discharged with an honorable
characterization of service. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in
Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-01327:
Exhibit A. Two DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 11 and 22 Apr 11,
w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 May 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11.Y
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05259
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05259 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his grade as staff sergeant (E-5) rather than airman first class (E-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00732
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request as untimely or on the merits. He also claims that the Numbered Air Force returned the Article 15 action because of the punishment's severity. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04376
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04376 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of his discharge be corrected to reflect (E-7) master sergeant versus (E-6) technical sergeant. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank of E-3, airman first class be corrected to reflect E-4, sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. The application was not filed...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01359
DPSOE states the application has not been filed within the three- year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Due to the passage of time and lack of promotion history files, DPSOE is unable to determine why the applicant was promoted to his various ranks on the dates reflected in his record. However, the total time-in-grade required to be considered for promotion from E-1 to E-4 was 30 months, and the applicant was promoted at...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00817
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00817 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of discharge reflects staff sergeant (SSgt) rather than sergeant (Sgt). DPSOE states the application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. The applicants complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02400
During this time, he received an evaluation that would determine his promotion. In the interest of justice, the applicant requests the Board consider the application. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Jul 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04138
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as he had sufficient time in grade at the time of his separation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02988
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is listed at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. Promotion Boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. With regard to his request for award of the LOM, there was no evidence...