RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01713
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his discharge should be upgraded because he was sent
on temporary duty to Guantanamo Bay for weeks until his ankles
swelled up approximately four times their original size. He was
taken to the hospital, his wife was four months pregnant and he
had not seen her for over six months. He was mentally inadequate
and unable to make sound decisions at that time. He was young
and never realized how the undesirable discharge would affect his
life. He hopes that with Gods help and consideration by the
Board, corrections will be made. He notes he has not had any
infractions for over 40 years.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
Veterans Identification.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 49.
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFM 39-17, Unfitness. The specific reason for this
action was for Driving a government vehicle without a license;
for failing to police living quarters, for being late for
formation, for failing to carry out assigned duty, for failing to
repair, and for being absent without leave (AWOL) on two
occasions. After a legal review of the case, the staff judge
advocate found it legally sufficient. The applicant received an
undesirable discharge after serving 1 year, 9 months, and 2 days
on active duty.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the
applicants request for an upgrade to his discharge on 28 Sep 54;
however, the AFDRB denied his request.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report,
which is at Exhibit C. On 1 Aug 11, a copy of the FBI report was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
On 1 Aug 11, a request for information pertaining to his post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response
within 30 days. In response to our request, the applicant
provided post-service information, which is attached at Exhibit
E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After
careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no
indication the actions taken to effect his discharge were
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing
regulations in effect at the time, or the actions taken against
the applicant were based on factors other than his own
misconduct. In addition, in view of the contents of the FBI
Identification Record we are not persuaded that the
characterization of the applicants discharge warrants an upgrade
to honorable on the basis of clemency. Having found no error or
injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the
applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists
to grant favorable action on his request.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2011-01713 in Executive Session on 8 Sep 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Aug 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 11, w/atchs.
VICE CHAIR
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02110
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. However, they concluded applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01009
He was credited with 7 years, 2 months, and 29 days active service (includes 160 days of lost time due to confinement) (total of all periods of service). They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02971
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02971 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be changed. On 9 Mar 12, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days. In response to our request, applicant provided post-service...
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 | 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02694
He had served 1 year, 2 months and 6 days on active service with 8 days of lost time due to AWOL. On 17 March 1959, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his discharge be upgraded so that he may enter active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). After careful consideration of the available facts contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board brief surrounding the applicant’s discharge, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02048
The applicant received one character and efficiency rating of “excellent,” dated 14 January 1952. 457522F), which is at Exhibit F. On 9 August 1955, the applicant submitted a similar application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02066
In a similar appeal, the applicant requested his BCD be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions) by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of her discharge. Exhibit D. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06;and, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Aug 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00811
On 1 March 1974, the applicant was discharged from active duty with an UOTHC discharge. He served 3 years, 6 months, and 28 days on active duty. On 25 February 1975 and 5 May 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants requests to upgrade his characterization of discharge.