RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01890
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his discharge characterization is unjust. He is
72 years old; collecting social security benefits and
desperately needs his discharge upgraded, so that he and his
family can take advantage of insurance discounts through the
United Services Automobile Association (USAA).
He has several medical conditions and spends hundreds of dollars
on prescription drugs every month. He notes that his crime was
not of a dangerous nature and believes that his commanding
officer was prejudiced and just had it in for him.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Sep 56 for
a period of four years.
On 17 Mar 60, the squadron commander notified the applicant of
administrative discharge action for unfitness frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
The specific reasons for the proposed action were based on two
Summary Courts-Martial for (1) wrongful appropriation of baby
food, valued at $9.60 and (2) for leaving his appointed place of
duty without proper authority and being disrespectful in
language toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO).
After consulting with counsel, he waived his right to an
administrative hearing by a board of officers and he further
acknowledged that he understood if his application was approved,
his separation could be under conditions other than honorable,
he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that this may
deprive him of rights as a veteran under both federal and state
legislation. The staff judge advocate found the case file
legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the
general discharge.
The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, on 6 May 60, with
service characterized as undesirable. He was credited with
3 years, 7 months and 10 days of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an
investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.
On 6 Sep 11, a copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the
applicant for comment. At that time, he was also invited to
provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since
leaving the service (Exhibit D).
In his statement, the applicant explains the circumstances of
his prior service; his accomplishments after leaving the
service, and why he believes his discharge should be upgraded
based on clemency.
He has reared a family, worked hard and even though he had some
problems with an ex-wife, he has become a model citizen.
Because of his medical conditions, he does not have much longer
to live and would like to get insurance through USAA to help
with the high cost of insurance.
The applicant provided an additional response reiterating his
original contentions.
The applicants complete response, with attachment, is 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 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 during the discharge process. 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. We considered the
evidence submitted in support of the applicants request for
clemency; however, considering his overall record of service,
the seriousness of the offenses which led to his administrative
separation, and the content of the FBI Report of Investigation,
we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of
his discharge is warranted based on clemency. 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 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-2011-01890 in Executive Session on 3 November 2011 and
12 December 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 11.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report of Investigation.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Sep 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated, 12 Sep 11, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01587
4) He received seven (7) Records of Individual Counseling, three for failure to go, three for failure to conform to AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel standards, and one for failure to attend required training. On 11 Apr 94, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, by reason of misconduct, and received a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01331
The Board recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jul 11.
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-2010-03683
He was advised at the time of discharge that his character of service would be upgraded to honorable after one year. The Numbered Air Force staff judge advocate recommended an undesirable discharge, without P&R. We have considered the available evidence of record; however, considering his overall record of service, the FBI Report of Investigation, and the lack of post service information since his discharge, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04305
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04305 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02267
On 22 Aug 73, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation for an undesirable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. He accumulated 398 days of lost time, which includes 4 days absent without leave from 9 Aug 73 to 12 Aug 73, and 389 days of confinement from 31 Aug 73 to 23 Sep 74. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04837
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02040
On 15 June 1973, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section D, paragraph 2-55, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, with a UOTHC service characterization. They concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change in the type or nature of the discharge (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the service characterization received was appropriate under the provisions of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01713
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. The applicant received an undesirable discharge after serving 1 year, 9 months, and 2 days on active duty. In response to our request, the applicant provided post-service information, which is attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02955
On 6 May 1988, the discharge authority determined that a general discharge was appropriate in light of the applicants overall military record. ________________________________________________________________ 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...