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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His record should be corrected for the purpose of closure and
national health.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a
letter of appreciation and an assignment order.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served on active duty from 28 September 1960 to 16 March 1962.
On 30 January 1961, the applicant, while serving in the grade of
airman third class (E-2), was found guilty by a summary court-
martial of wrongfully damaging, by striking with a hatchet, an
automobile belonging to another airman in violation of Article
109, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He received
punishment consisting of forfeiture of $50 pay for one month.
On 31 May 1961, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for
failure to obey a lawful regulation. His punishment consisted of
two hours extra duty per day for 14 days.
On 11 July 1961, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for
being a minor possessing alcohol in violation of Article 134,
UCMJ. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman
basic (E-1).
On 6 October 1961, the applicant was found guilty by special
court-martial for two specifications of theft in violation of
Article 121, UCMJ. He received punishment consisting of three
months of hard labor and forfeiture of $55.46 pay per month for
three months.
On 22 November 1961, the applicant was notified of his
commanders intent to recommend the applicant for an undesirable
discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Air Force
Regulation 39-17, paragraphs 4a and 4d. The applicant
acknowledged receipt of his commanders intent, waived his right
to a hearing before a board of officers, and submitted a
statement in his own behalf. After considering the applicants
submission and a legal review finding the case to be legally
sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended
discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an
undesirable characterization of service.
The applicant was discharged from active duty effective 16 March
1962 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He
served 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days on active duty. He had 82
days of lost time due to confinement.
On 29 July 1975, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
reviewed and denied the applicants request to upgrade his
characterization of discharge to honorable.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an
Investigation Report (Exhibit C).
On 11 October 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to
submit comments about his post service activities and in response
to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). The applicant responded by
providing two character references.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, 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 in the discharge processing. 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
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not
find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to
recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. 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-2011-02967 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02967:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 11, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 11, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00039
Between February and September 1961, the applicant was counseled six times; three for failing to report for duty on time, once for failing to keep his room in inspection order, and twice for failing to report for duty. On 4 October 1961, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman basic. We have considered the applicants overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00891
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 applicants request be approved. On 20 October 1976, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicants discharge characterization to general (under honorable conditions) under the reason of current policy and clemency.
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-2011-00502
On 6 November 1964, the discharge authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with an undesirable discharge. 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 processing. Exhibit C. FBI Report.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00252
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00252 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). At the same time, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit D). Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00631
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00631 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect her characterization of discharge as general (under honorable conditions) rather than under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). On 12 December 2002,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02743
The applicant was reported absent without leave from 26-28 April 1966 and 20-23 May 1966. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the applicant (Identification Record No. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02230
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02230 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mothers undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The service member enlisted in the Regular Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02643
Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 April 1964 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (personality and behavior disorder), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 October 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this...