Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02599
Original file (BC-2011-02599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02599 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
honorable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

There was no error at the time of his discharge; however, he is 
retired now and would like his discharge upgraded before he dies. 
He was 14 years old at the time he enlisted in 1952, but was 
discharged in 1954 for fraudulent investment. He served his 
country honorably while on active duty. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the 
United States, and a copy of his Certificate of Birth. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 4 Aug 52. 
According to the applicant’s military records, he was also known 
as Anthony C. Gusick. The applicant was notified by his 
commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air 
Force under the provisions of AFR 39-17. The specific reasons 
for this action were for not showing any progress in attitude or 
efficiency, for dereliction of duty, for damaging a motor scooter 
and for firing a weapon in an unauthorized situation and at an 
unauthorized time, for breaking a stop light glass, for failing 
to report for duty and for being late to work on several 
occasions. He was summary court-martialed; reduced in grade to 
airman basic; given extra duty and compelled to pay damages; and 
given a verbal reprimand. The applicant received a general 
discharge after serving 2 years, and 19 days on active duty. 

 

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the 
applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge on 2 Dec 56; 


however, the AFDRB stated no further consideration could be given 
by the AFDRB. The applicant was directed to appeal to the Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records. 

 

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify 
an arrest record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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. We considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not 
find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting 
the relief sought on that basis. 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02599 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02599 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 


 

 

 





Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02967

    Original file (BC-2011-02967.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02967 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 22 November 1961, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend the applicant for an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00891

    Original file (BC-2011-00891.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 November 1974, the applicant received an LOR for failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 21 October 1974. On 31 December 1974, his commander recommended the applicant’s request be approved. On 20 October 1976, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) under the reason of current policy and clemency.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00811

    Original file (BC-2011-00811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s requests to upgrade his characterization of discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02350

    Original file (BC-2010-02350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, he was discharged for fraudulent enlistment. However, documentation substantiated the applicant had more than one dependent at the time of his enlistment in the Air Force. On 20 April 1956, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and approved the applicant’s request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00912

    Original file (BC-2004-00912.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander indicated his reasons for this action were the Article 15 actions and on 28 February 1985 to 22 April 1985, he was counseled numerous times on his bearing, behavior, reporting to duty on time, and AFR 35-10 violations. On 26 March 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate conducted a legal review and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and he not be afforded an opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. They indicated the Air Force Discharge Review Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00731

    Original file (BC-2010-00731.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00731 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his honorable discharge. According to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), they issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate (contained in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03302

    Original file (BC-2010-03302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He served one year, nine months, and seven days on active duty. On 4 April 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and upgraded the applicant’s characterization of discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to use as a basis to further upgrade his characterization of service based on the merits of the case or on clemency.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00369

    Original file (BC-2012-00369.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00369 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. They concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04232

    Original file (BC-2012-04232.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. On 7 December 1998, the applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade of his discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 24 May 1999 the applicant was advised that since his case was denied by the AFDRB he had the right to appeal, in person, to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-1988-01539-2

    Original file (BC-1988-01539-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    By letter dated, 9 Dec 76, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) notified the applicant that his discharge was upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). However, in view of the AFDRB’s earlier decision, and the contents of the FBI Report, we are unpersuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge to fully honorable, his RE code of 2, or his reason for separation is warranted. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Dec 06.