RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01624
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not kicked out of the Air Force. He volunteered to take a UOTHC discharge as a reason for early separation because the Korean War ended and the Air Force was told to cut back on personnel. At the time he was told that after six months his discharge would be changed to Honorable if he wrote in. The First Sergeant lied, and he believed him. He didnt pass his physical and they said he did. The three letters written against him were all lies.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 26 Mar 52. The applicants military personnel records were apparently located in the area most heavily damaged in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. Therefore, the circumstances surrounding his discharge could not be verified.
According to available records, on 7 Apr 54, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and was discharged in the grade of Airman Basic (E-1). The reason listed for the action was unfitness.
On 10 Feb 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. In response, the applicant provided a character reference, a personal narrative of his time in the Air Force, and the prescription for his glasses (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 probable error or injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of this case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. We note the applicants military personnel records are not available for our review. Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation and character of service could not be verified. However, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the applicants discharge, to include his service characterization and narrative reason for separation, were proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was effected. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate otherwise. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of sufficient evidence related to the applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicants accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01624 in Executive Session on 18 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Feb 14.
Exhibit C. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01095
In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to conclude that the applicants post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01624
The briefing was standardized across the Air Force in late 2009 and contains the basic information about the program and includes the requirement to be on active duty to transfer benefits. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00887
On 12 Oct 71, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the facts of record in his case did not warrant changing the type of discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicants Undesirable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02414
There is no official documentation in the applicants military personnel record to verify he deployed in support of a qualifying operation in a qualifying area of eligibility for award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Government of Kuwait. Upon final Board decision, administrative correction of his official military personnel record will be completed by AFPC/DPSOR. ________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01724
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01724 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) upgraded to honorable. On 11 Mar 88, the applicant was discharged with a reason for separation of request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial, with service characterized as...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04270
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. On 26 March 2013, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post-service activities (Exhibit E). In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency and considered the applicant's overall post-service activities and accomplishments; however, the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04743
He served in the Air Force to the best of his ability and had a good service record. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 7 Mar 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02220
On 23 Sep 03, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, concluding that his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Lastly, the applicant was not entitled to a DD Form 214 at the time of his discharge from the USAFR because he was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01624
Available DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of 100% for his unfitting conditions. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his arteriosclerotic heart disease is not combat related. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04498
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04498 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence of a successful post-service transition, we are not inclined to recommend granting relief upon this basis. ...