RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00113
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was unjustly received because it was issued when
he failed to get a haircut. Until now he had neglected to file
the paperwork to get it upgraded.
This started out as a joke when he submitted paperwork to resign
his noncommissioned officer (NCO) status. However, someone else
saw the paperwork and started processing it and once the joke
got out of hand he refused to get a haircut.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 Feb 68, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
for a period of four years.
On 6 Oct 70, the applicant presented his immediate supervisor
with a letter to resign his status as a NCO and requested
immediate discharge. This letter was indorsed by his immediate
supervisor.
On 27 Oct 70, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a direct
order from a superior NCO to get a haircut. On 28 Oct 70,
disciplinary action against the applicant was approved.
On 4 Nov 70, the applicant received an Article 15 for, on or
about 28 Oct 70, failing to obey an order issued by a superior
NCO to get a haircut. The applicant refused to accept the
Article 15 and elected trial by court-martial. After consulting
with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge
for the good of the service, acknowledging that his request, if
approved might result in an undesirable discharge.
On 24 Nov 70, the applicant was discharged with service
characterized as UOTHC and issued a DD Form 258AF, Undesirable
Discharge Certificate. He was credited with two years, nine
months, and six days of active duty service.
________________________________________________________________
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.
We note that prior to the events under review, the applicant had
an exemplary record of performance; however, after refusing to
obey a direct order from his superior NCO to get a haircut, in
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), his
actions eventually led to his discharge. In the interest of
justice, we considered upgrading his discharge on the basis of
clemency; however, in the absence of post-service documentation,
we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of
his discharge is warranted on that basis. Should the applicant
provide post-service documentation, we would be willing to
reconsider his request. 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 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-2013-00113 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00113
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00113 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 6 Oct 70, the applicant presented his immediate supervisor with a letter to resign his status as a NCO and requested immediate discharge. On 4 Nov 70,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01509
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01509 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Include foreign-service time for service in Thailand; (administratively corrected) Upgrade his characterization of service from undesirable to honorable; and Change his rank from Airman Basic (AB) to Sergeant...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01033
MD01-01033 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I respected him, but told him "That's why they don't want fraternizing, because you never know when a superior will feel disrespected". After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).A...
The Board further concluded that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by the number and nature of the personal problems he appeared to be facing and recommended that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of discharge on 9 June 2000. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0076
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0076 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002+-0076 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AMN) (HGH Al1C) 1. You did, at or near Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, on or about 15 Oct 01, while in the office of Senior Master Sergeant .
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00148
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00148 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, we conclude that no basis exists for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03658
The applicant’s performance reports are provided at Exhibit B. Available records pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are at Exhibit B, and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides medical details in his advisory at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service records revealed no reference to participation in combat or events similar to those described by the...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0214
The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief, ISSUE: The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in that it was based on one isolated incident in 6years and 11 months of service with no other adverse actions. CONCLUSIONS; The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant...
For this offense he was court-martialed and sentenced to 30 day's confinement. He served 1 year 11 months and 20 days total active duty with 198 days lost time. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member The following documentary...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2001-0211
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN as, AMN |