RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03511 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He served honorably for the original term of his contract. 

 

Right before he was to be discharged his contract was changed 
and he did not agree with the change. 

 

His father was sick with cancer and he had to go home. He has 
maintained an honorable life and has lived within the values 
instilled in him by the military. His time in service should 
not be tarnished by one event. He was acting within the honor 
value system of the military by attending to his dying father. 

 

In support of his request, but not listed on his DD Form 149, 
the applicant submits letters of support from his daughter and 
previous landlord. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
28 December 1948 and was progressively promoted to the rank of 
Airman Second Class (A2C), with a pay grade of E-3 and a date of 
rank of 1 February 1950. The applicant’s rank at the time of 
discharge was Airman Basic (AB), with a pay grade of E-1, and a 
date of rank of 29 April 1952. 

 

On 7 November 1952, the applicant’s commander initiated a 
Request for Board Action under the provisions of AFR 39-17. The 
specific reason for the proposed action was; Unfitness. The 
applicant had been a constant offender and administratively 
disciplined on several separate occasions in 1952. The 
commander stated, the applicant put forth very little effort to 
overcome his difficulties in spite of receiving adequate 
counseling from officers and senior noncommissioned officers. 


He had shown no improvement as evidenced by the following 
specific incidents: 

 

 In February 1952 he received Articles 15 for reporting late 
for duty and for breaking restriction. 

 

 On 29 April 1952, the applicant faced a special court-martial 
and was found guilty of the specification of violation of 
Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Absence 
without leave; failure to go to appointed place of duty at the 
time prescribed. He was sentenced to reduction to the lowest 
enlisted grade and forfeiture of $53.00 pay per month for four 
months. The findings and sentence were approved as adjudged on 
6 May 1952. 

 

 In June 1952, he received an Article 15 for reporting for duty 
drunk to the extent of having to be assisted to the commander’s 
office. 

 

 On 2 July 1952, the applicant faced a general court-martial 
and pled not guilty to the charge and specifications of stealing 
one blue suit of a value of $75.00 from an airman in his unit. 
The applicant was found guilty of the specification except for 
the word $75.00 which was substituted by the word $20.00. He 
was found not guilty of the excepted word but guilty of the 
substituted word. The applicant was sentenced to confinement 
and hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per 
month for six months. The findings and sentence were approved 
as adjudged on 4 August 1952. 

 

Due to AWOL, confinement and administrative actions the 
applicant had over 180 lost duty days. 

 

On 15 November 1952, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge action and his right to appear before a board of 
officers, to be represented by counsel, present witnesses, 
introduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses offered by 
the Board Recorder. He declined to be represented by counsel as 
well as present witnesses, evidence or comments on his behalf. 

 

The Board met on 18 November 1952. On 3 December 1952 the Board 
of Officers recommended the applicant be discharged for 
unfitness under the provisions of AFR 39-17 upon completion of 
the sentence of the last court-martial or if feasible, 
remittance of any portion of the unserved sentence to permit 
early discharge. 

 

Subsequent to the proceedings being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and on 
7 December 1952, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force 
with an undesirable characterization of service and credited 
with serving 3 years, 4 months and 18 days of service of which 
1 year, 1 month and 23 days were credited as Foreign and/or Sea 
Service. 


 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report 
which is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states ordinarily, an 
applicant must file an application within three years after an 
error or injustice is discovered or, with due diligence, should 
have been discovered. The applicant’s courts-martial and final 
action on his discharge took place in 1952. He says the Board 
should find it in the interest of justice to consider the 
application because he has lived an honorable life in accordance 
with the values learned from the military. He says his time in 
the service should not be tarnished by one event. The 
application is untimely. 

 

At the time of the applicant’s service, the Air Force did not 
keep records of trial for courts-martial which did not result in 
a punitive discharge; therefore a review of the transcripts of 
the courts-martial is not possible. JAJM reviewed the 
applicant’s military justice actions from the documents in the 
applicant’s personnel records. Based on these records, there is 
no evidence of error in the processing in the applicant’s two 
courts-martial and three Article 15 actions. 

 

Under 10 U.S.C.1552 (f), which amended the basic corrections 
board legislation, The Board’s ability to correct records 
related to courts-martial occurring or reviewed under the UCMJ, 
is limited. Specifically, section 1552(f) (1) permits the 
correction of records related to action on the sentence of 
courts-martial for the purpose of clemency. Apart from these 
two limited exceptions, the effect of section 1552(f) is that 
the Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or 
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred on or 
after 5 May 1950 (the effective date of the UCMJ). 

 

JAJM defers to other agencies to offer opinions on whether the 
Board should grant the applicant’s request with regard to his 
administrative discharge action. We recommend against action by 
the Board on the applicant’s military justice actions. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states; they found no error 
or injustices in the processing of the discharge action. Based 
upon the documentation on file in the master personnel records, 
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge authority. The applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing. 


 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 22 December 2011 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not 
received a response. 

 

On 5 April 2012, a copy of the FBI Investigative Report was 
forwarded to the applicant along with a request for post-service 
documentation for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 

In response, the applicant provided letters from his sisters and 
the manager of the assisted living facility where he now resides 
(Exhibit H). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the 
absence of sufficient evidence by the applicant attesting to a 
successful post-service adjustment in the years since his 
separation, we are not inclined to extend clemency at this time. 
However, the Board is willing to reconsider the applicant’s 
request if he can provide evidence supporting a successful post-
service adjustment. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

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 this application 
BC-2011-03511 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 August 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Report 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 October 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 12 December 2011. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 December 2011. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC w/atchs, dated 5 April 2012. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant’s sister w/atchs, dated 
16 April 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair