RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02411
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Undesirable is not dishonorable. He deserves to go before the
Board.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293,
Application for the Review of Discharge from the United States
Armed Forces of the United States, correspondence from the
Department of Veterans Affairs and his DD form 214, Report of
Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 January
1951. By application, the applicant acknowledged his commanders
intent to discharge him, the option to have his case heard
before a board of officers, his right to counsel and the right
to submit statements and call witness on his behalf. He waived
his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board.
He was discharged on 12 June 1954.
On 1 August 1961, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied
the applicants request to upgrade his discharge from
undesirable to honorable.
The applicant responded to a request for post-service
information and stated that he now has Alzheimers disease and
cannot remember why he received an undesirable discharge. He
also informs the Board that he has been an active member of the
church and has worked since his separation. He has been married
and divorced and now lives with his son and his wife.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
Examiners Note: The applicant has not shown the
characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions
of AFR 39-17A (unfitness) (extract copy of applicable portion
attached as Exhibit E). Nor has he shown the nature of the
discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses
committed. At the time of the applicants discharge, AFR 39-
17A, 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 when an
airman discharged under this regulation should be furnished an
undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a
given case warrants a general or honorable discharge. Criteria
for the issuance of an undesirable, general, or honorable
discharge is outlined in paragraph 9, AFR 39-10 (See Exhibit F).
Notwithstanding the absence of error or injustice, the Board has
the prerogative to grant relief on the basis of clemency if so
inclined.
Attached at Exhibit G is a memorandum prepared by the Air Force
Review Boards Agency Legal Advisor addressing the issue of
characterization of service and how standards have changed since
1959.
________________________________________________________________
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 applicants 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, or unduly harsh. In the
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicants
discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the
evidence submitted insufficient to compel us to recommend
granting the request on that basis. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-02411 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jan 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicants Response, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. AFR 39-17A, Enlisted Personnel.
Exhibit F. AFR 39-10 Excerpt.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor Opinion.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03136
In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicants discharge on the basis of clemency; however, we found the evidence submitted insufficient to compel us to recommend granting the request on that basis. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00794
On 7 August 1961, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 11 April 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04393
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04393 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Examiners Note: The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17A (unfitness) (extract copy of applicable portion attached as Exhibit D)....
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771
In addition, based on his overall record of service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the contents of the FBI report, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Air Force Regulation 39-17A.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00727
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00727 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions (UHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-17, Unfitness, (Exhibit C). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05403
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05403 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He has been married for 48 years, is a home builder, and has made a good life for his family. He received a general discharge after serving 3 years, 5 months, and 23 days on active duty.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01414 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment code (RE) be changed to one that would allow him to enlist in the Army. The applicant appealed to the Discharge Review board (DRB) to...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02240
On 23 Jun 58, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and the characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Therefore, the Board Majority recommends the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05234
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05234 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Board should consider his untimely application in the interest of justice because he is 75 years old and has never been in trouble since. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01099
The applicant has not shown the characterization of his discharge was contrary to the provisions of AFR 39-10. Based on the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that clemency is warranted. _________________________________________________________________ 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...