RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04404
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to Honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was very young and did not understand the reason for his
discharge, as he was separated from his wife at the time of the
incident. He appealed to the Discharge Review Board in 1955
because he wanted to reenlist. Now he is applying because he
wants to be able to say he is an honorably discharged veteran.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
11 Jun 53.
On 7 Nov 53, the applicant received non-judicial punishment
under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 7 Nov 53 to 9 Nov 53.
On 22 Nov 53, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure
to repair from 0745 to 1500 hours.
On 14 Jun 54, the applicant was convicted in a civilian court of
the charge of adultery for having sexual relations with
a 16 year old girl, who was not his wife. He was sentenced to
nine months in jail (suspended) and was placed on probation for
one year.
On 16 Jun 54, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure
to repair.
On 23 Jun 54, the applicants commander recommended him for
discharge based upon his conviction in civilian court.
On 9 Jul 54, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of AFR 39-22 (Conviction by civilian court) and furnished an
undesirable discharge certificate.
On 14 Mar 55, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered
the applicants request to upgrade his discharge to honorable
and determined he had submitted insufficient evidence to warrant
an upgrade.
On 11 Jan 13, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit C).
________________________________________________________________
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. In the interest of
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of
clemency; however, in the absence of any information related to
his activities since leaving the service, we are not persuaded
that it would be in the interest of justice to recommend
granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis
exists to grant the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-04404 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Sep 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 May 13, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00302
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan 51 and was assigned to the 6351st Medical Squadron at Naha Air Base. Apparently, however, he was reassigned again and, on 12 May 53, his squadron requested his transfer to the rehabilitation squadron because of his unresponsiveness to repeated counseling, correction and discipline. The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) on 16 Jul 54 with an undesirable characterization...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01555
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be changed to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit c). In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02283
On 31 Mar 55, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force. On 26 Sep 55 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04575
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04575 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. However, the Board would like to point out that if the applicant were to provide post-service information, they...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03944
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03944 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 30 JUNE 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. On 13 Sep 54, the wing commander recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be accepted and he be separated with an...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02764 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 4 days active service (excludes 197 days of lost time due to three periods of confinement). They also noted applicant did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03691
Applicant’s grade at time of discharge was airman basic (AB/E-1). Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of discharge. Having found insufficient evidence of an 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02427
On 3 Jun 82, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to general or honorable. On 30 Aug 82, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board (see Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In the applicant’s response to the evaluation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04971
In response to the request, the applicant states that he is almost 81 years old and his friends and relatives are not aware of his undesirable discharge. His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. At the time of the applicants discharge, AFR 39-17, paragraph 8, stated that when discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable Discharge (UD) will be furnished. However, in 1959, AFR 39-17 was changed to state that an airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03333
Prior to 14 Nov 52, the applicants records reflect the following four Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations on unspecified dates: 1. On 12 May 53, the Judge Advocate prepared a Petition for Grant of Review asking for a review of the conviction; however, at the time the applicant absented himself without authority. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of...