DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01970
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on the time served in confinement, the length of time that
has elapsed since his discharge, and his clean record, he is
deserving of an upgrade of his discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 23 Sep 54,
for a period of four years. He was promoted to the grade of
airman second class (A2C/E-3) with a date of rank of 1 Oct 55.
On 5 Sep 56, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-
Martial for wrongfully appropriating property of the United
States valued at more than $50.00. For this offense he was
sentenced to reduction in grade to airman basic, confinement at
hard labor for 30 days, forfeiture of $50.00.
On 1 Jul 58, the squadron commander notified the applicant of
administrative discharge action under the provisions of AFR 39-
22, para 5, Conviction by Civil Court. The specific reason for
the proposed action was based on his conviction by civil court
for theft of a motor vehicle on a government reservation. He
was sentenced to 2 years in a Federal institution.
On 18 Jul 58, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of AFR 39-22, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness, with
service characterized as UOTHC. He was credited with
three years, eight months and four days of active duty service
(including 47 days of lost time due to being AWOL and
confinement at hard labor.
The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board
(AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB
denied his application. They concluded the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of
the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the
discharge authority (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).
________________________________________________________________
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. In the interest of
justice we considered the applicant’s overall record of service,
the seriousness of the offenses which led to his administrative
separation and the lack of post-service documentation; however,
we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of
his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Should the
applicant provide additional information, e.g., post-service
documentation to support his claim, we would be willing to
reconsider his appeal. 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
________________________________________________________________
2
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01970 in Executive Session on 7 November 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00292
After serving his 30-days of confinement, he was informed he was being recommended for an undesirable discharge. He understood if his request for discharge was approved that his separation from the Air Force could be under conditions other than honorable and he could receive an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00586
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00586 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00723
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00723 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. They found the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03376
On 11 Dec 59 and 18 Oct 78, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02109
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02109 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had completed a total of 6 month and 11 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. DPPRS indicated that the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01109
For this incident, he was tried and convicted by a summary court-martial and sentenced to be confined to hard labor for 26 days, and to forfeit $50.00. On 28 December 1979, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence, identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, or provide any facts warranting a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01255
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 February 1951, the former member enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years. On 12 December 1955, the former member submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFRDB) requesting his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-03855
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03855 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 2 Nov 12, a request for information pertaining to his post- service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05845
On 20 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as UOTHC in the grade of airman basic. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 5 May 13, the applicant states he has two reasons for seeking an upgrade to his discharge. While the applicant contends his discharge was unjust because of two TBI injuries, and states that he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146
In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.