RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01187
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told that his discharge would be changed to a more
honorable characterization after leaving military service. He
believes he completed the process to upgrade his discharge in the
late 1950s. He does not recall the outcome of the upgrade. His
wife believes he received a favorable upgrade, but does not
recall the specific outcome of his request.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
documents extracted from his military personnel records.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Jun 52, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the
Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the rank of
airman first class; however, he was demoted to airman basic on
28 Oct 53.
On 19 Apr 54, the applicants commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unfitness. The
specific reasons for the discharge action were the applicants
continual commission of minor disciplinary infractions. The
applicant was counseled on five different occasions regarding his
actions in the barracks, his conduct on and off duty, and his
admitted attempts to obtain an unfitness discharge. The
commander also noted two instances of checks on insufficient
funds, one instance of leaving mail in a vehicle overnight, and
one instance of leaving mail unguarded.
His commander advised him of his rights in this matter. On
11 May 54, the applicant acknowledged he was offered legal
counsel and voluntarily signed the discharge application.
On 28 May 54, the discharge authority directed the applicants
undesirable discharge. He was discharged on 2 Jul 54 and was
credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 5 days active service.
_________________________________________________________________
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 process. Based on the available
evidence of record, it appears the applicants undesirable
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 his 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, in
the absence of any evidence related to the applicants activities
since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought on that basis. However, should the applicant
decide to submit information related to his post-service
activities (i.e. supporting statements from community leaders and
acquaintances, or other evidence of a successful post-service
rehabilitation) we may be inclined to reconsider his request based
on new evidence. 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 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-2011-01187 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Military Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01555
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be changed to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit c). In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01684
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01684 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 May 58, 18 Dec 62 and 4 May 67, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. At the same time, the applicant was offered an opportunity...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01303
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 husbands undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). On 19 Sep 60, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB); however, the AFDRB considered and denied the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03108
On 26 Feb 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to go. ________________________________________________________________ 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. Exhibit D....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01405
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 8 July 1955 under the provisions of AFR 39-17, Discharge of Airman Because of Unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04971
In response to the request, the applicant states that he is almost 81 years old and his friends and relatives are not aware of his undesirable discharge. His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. At the time of the applicants discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 8, stated that when discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge (UD) will be furnished. However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state that an airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02283
On 31 Mar 55, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force. On 26 Sep 55 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02195
Applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-22 (Conviction by Civil Court) with an undesirable discharge on 1 May 54, in the grade of airman basic. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01750
He has provided no evidence that such an upgrade was granted since it is a copy of this proof that he is requesting. As the applicant appears unable to establish to our satisfaction that his dishonorable was upgraded and a general discharge certificate was issued as he claims, we suggest he may wish to amend his application to a request for an upgraded discharge on the basis of clemency. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...