Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00223
Original file (BC-2013-00223.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00223
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant makes no contentions.

The applicant provided no documents in support of his appeal.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 May 1952.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-16 (Unsuitability).  The specific reason 
was the applicant suffered with a nervous condition that 
undoubtedly existed prior to his enlistment into the Air Force.  
He was unable to carry on a normal conversation with a superior 
without showing outward signs of his nervous strain.  The 
applicant was lacking in coordination and had very little 
aptitude for drill and all other phases of basic training.  
Burdened with this mental handicap, it was extremely doubtful 
that he would ever be able to adjust himself to military life, 
and further, that he would ever assume responsibility to any 
degree of efficiency.

The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and his 
case was heard before a board of officers.  The applicant chose 
to appear before the board without counsel.  The board 
recommended discharge due to unsuitability.  The discharge 
authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a 
general discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 1 July 1952.  
He served 1 month and 10 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_


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 based on 
clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, we find no 
basis to grant clemency at this time.  Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-00223 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, not dated.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.





2


3



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00545

    Original file (BC-2007-00545.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00545 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 20 June 1952, the applicant appeared before a Board of Officers to determine if he should be discharged...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00982

    Original file (BC-2005-00982.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 June 1952, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a request for the applicant to appear before a Board of Officers, under the provisions of AFR 39-16, to determine if he was inapt or unsuitable for further retention in the United States Air Force (as indicated in a report by a psychiatrist). The applicant was present, and it is indicated in the proceedings that he expressed his desire to be discharged from the service. He stated he did not desire a copy of the board record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04336

    Original file (BC 2013 04336.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04336 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge for unsuitability was consistent with the substantive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01808

    Original file (BC-2004-01808.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant in March 1982 presented for care in the mental health clinic with nervousness and depressive symptoms due to “too much stress on flight line (his crew chief).” His medical records also reflect the applicant was evaluated for alcohol abuse in March 1983, with no other details listed. The evidence in the record shows a diagnosis of a personality disorder, however, the record also shows that the applicant’s duty performance was excellent. There is no indication in the record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00654

    Original file (BC-2013-00654.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00654 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “honorable.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His record of service in the Air Force was honorable. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04247

    Original file (BC-2012-04247.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Nevertheless, the Board may collectively consider the applicant’s top performance during Basic Military Service, his initial laudatory performance reports, his apparent decline after assignment to an undesired occupation, the perception of an “11th hour” change in diagnosis by the military service provider, and the post-service diagnosis of PTSD, in offering the applicant alternative relief by changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The complete AFBCMR Medical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00873

    Original file (BC-2013-00873.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 July 1972, the commander approved the discharge and directed he be separated with a general discharge. On 2 December 1980, the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00873 in Executive Session on 3 December 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00994

    Original file (BC 2013 00994.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from active duty in the grade of sergeant (E-4) effective 15 July 1973 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 10 years, and 28 days on active duty. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the Board does not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02221

    Original file (BC 2013 02221.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 Aug 1972, he was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-02221: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 2013, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00659

    Original file (BC-2012-00659.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00659 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on...