Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03136
Original file (BC 2013 03136.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03136

	 		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under 
honorable conditions).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 18 years old when he tried to impress a young lady by 
taking a car off the street in 1951.  This resulted in charges 
by a civilian court and serving an 18 month sentence.  He was 
subsequently discharged with an undesirable discharge.  He is 
now 81 years old and is making arrangements for placement into a 
retirement home.  He feels a veteran sponsored facility would 
best fit his lifestyle.  His immature indiscretion should not 
hinder his ability to get into a veterans nursing home.  His 
conduct since his incarceration has been above the law and very 
productive.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 
1950.  His commander requested that he be discharged under the 
provisions of AFR 39-22, Disposition of Individuals Convicted by 
Civil Court after pleading and being found guilty of violating 
the Dyer Act.  On 9 April 1951, the commander ordered his 
discharge.  He was separated on 18 April 1951 with an 
undesirable discharge.  He was credited with 11 months and 1 day 
of active duty service. 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation indicated that on the basis of the information 
provided, they were unable to locate an arrest record.
In response for post-service information the applicant recounts 
his life after serving the 18 month sentence in the reformatory.  
He met and married his wife and adopted two children.  He owned 
his own company, which was successful.  However, upon divorcing 
his wife, he left it for the family.  He worked for another 
company until he was forced to retire in 2003.  He hopes this 
information proves that he is a responsible person of good 
character.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D.

Examiner’s 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 applicant’s 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 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, or unduly harsh.  In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the applicant’s 
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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02316 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 13, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Feb 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, 20 Mar 14, 
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  AFR 39-17A, Enlisted Personnel.
    Exhibit F.  AFR 39-10 Excerpt.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRB Legal Advisor Opinion.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02411

    Original file (BC 2013 02411.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant responded to a request for post-service information and stated that he now has Alzheimer’s disease and cannot remember why he received an undesirable discharge. At the time of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04393

    Original file (BC-2012-04393.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. Examiner’s 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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-00794

    Original file (BC-2013-00794.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 August 1961, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records denied the applicant’s 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00771

    Original file (BC-2007-00771.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-05403

    Original file (BC-2012-05403.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04971

    Original file (BC-2012-04971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00727

    Original file (BC-2007-00727.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01414

    Original file (BC-2007-01414.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2007-02044

    Original file (BC-2007-02044.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was only 17 when he entered the military, and he was not convicted in any military court. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 17 December 1953, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05234

    Original file (BC 2013 05234.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...