RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04127
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX Deceased) HEARING DESIRED: NO
XXXXXXX (Applicant)
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husbands Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge be
upgraded to Honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband was given an unfair discharge because of his race. He
was the only African-American in the Security Police Squadron and
his commander and the chain of command tried to do anything to get
him out of the Air Force. Prior to his discharge, he was demoted
from the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) to the grade of airman
second class (A2C, E-3). He had honorable service prior to the
events that occurred at his last assignment. He worked for 37 years
without any problems.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of the
decedents military records.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Jul 1951, the decedent enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years and on 5 Jul 1955, he was discharged in the
grade of SSgt for the purpose of reenlistment. His service during
this period was Honorable.
On 6 Jul 1955, the decedent reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for
a period of six years.
On 20 Sep 1960, his commander notified him that he was recommending
he be discharged. The specific reason for his action is reflected
in the Notification Memorandum at Exhibit A.
On 23 Sep 1960, the decedent acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification.
On 2 Dec 1960, he was discharged from the Air Force with a OTH
discharge. He served a total of 9 years, 4 months and 26 days of
active duty.
On 23 May 1961, the decedent submitted a request to the Air Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade to his discharge.
On 11 Oct 1961, the decedent was notified that the AFDRB considered
his application and concluded that a change in the type or nature of
your discharge is not warranted.
On 5 Aug 2013, a request for post-service information was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C),
as of this date, no response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an injustice. Although no evidence has been
provided which would lead us to believe the decedents discharge was
improper at the time it was affected, in the interest of justice, we
believe partial relief is warranted based on clemency. Prior to the
incident that led to the decedents separation, he served honorably
for a period of approximately eight years. The separation policy
was in transition at the time of his discharge in 1960 and although
it appears his records were completed based on the new criteria
(from undesirable to OTH); his records may have simply been changed
to OTH, rather than reviewed for a change of character under the new
guidelines. While not condoning the decedents misconduct, we
believe under current standards, the characterization of his service
is excessively harsh. In addition, it has been more than 53 years
since his separation and it appears likely that he had made a good
post-service adjustment. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of
record, we are convinced the interest of justice can best be served
by removing this blemish from his records and upgrading his
discharge to general (under honorable conditions) on the basis of
clemency. We considered upgrading his discharge to honorable;
however, we do not believe that an upgrade to a fully honorable
discharge is warranted. Accordingly, we recommend that his records
be corrected to the extent indicated below.
________________________________________________________________
?
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that on 2 Dec 1960,
he was discharged with service characterized as general (under
honorable conditions).
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 17 Sep 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2012-
04127:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Aug 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Aug 2013, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2011-02061
_______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant and the decedent were married on 29 May 1961. After the death of the retired member, the widow provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02594
According to their divorce decree, the decedent agreed to maintain the applicant as the SBP beneficiary. DPFFF recommends the members record be corrected to reflect on 13 Sep 2002, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2011-04704
He elected spouse and child SBP coverage based on a reduced level of retired pay, and his wife concurred in his election. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 Jan 2012, the applicant requested additional time to provide supplementary evidence in support of her request and her case was administratively closed. In the absence of evidence that there was a “deemed election” by the applicant within one year 3 after the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04812
However, there was no documentation in the evidence of record to indicate the deceased former member was incompetent at the time of his passing. The applicant has provided no evidence her deceased husband was incompetent prior to his death. The service member must live until the date of separation to be considered retired. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02704
She did not even know about the divorce until her husband passed away. If neither the member nor the former spouse requests the election change during the one-year eligibility period, former spouse coverage may not be established thereafter. Further, the divorce decree she provided did not include language that would entitle her to former spouse SBP coverage.
The RSFPP election form provided by the applicant reflects he elected spouse and child coverage with Option 4. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the decedent’s record should be corrected to show RSFPP spouse and child coverage based on one-half of his retired pay was established effective 1 June 1970. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that her late husband’s intent not to extend...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04000
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04000 MEMBER:(DECEASED) COUNSEL: NONE APPLICANT: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. DPSOR states that the member was retired in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) the grade held at the time of retirement, which complies with 10 U.S.C. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02755
The U.S. Court of Claims has consistently ruled that widows of members retiring after SBP's implementation, who were not given notice of the sponsor's election, are entitled to full SBP coverage-Barber v. U.S., 676 F.2d 651 (CI. In this case, although this applicant claims she does not remember seeing the notification letter when the decedent declined SBP coverage prior to his retirement, clearly the spouse notification letter was sent to her by the Air Force as required by law. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04722
However, we also note that federal law makes the election unavailable when the deemed election is not timely effected, and no evidence has been presented which shows a deemed election was made within the one-year time period mandated by the law. We are aware that in extraordinary circumstances, it is within the authority of the Board to correct a record if it finds it necessary to prevent an error or injustice. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR BC-2012- 04722 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04821
_______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. After the death of the retired member, the widow provided a sworn statement that she did not receive notification that her husband had declined SBP coverage. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...