Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00113
Original file (BC 2014 00113.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00113

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed by his commanding officer, that once he earned 
his high school diploma he could request his characterization of 
discharge be upgraded. 

He understands that 56 years is a long time; however, the term 
“General” as his characterization of service does not sit well.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
letter, a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United 
States Report of Transfer or Discharge, and a copy of an 
Honorable discharge certificate from the Navy Reserves, dated 
15 May 55. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documents extracted from his military personnel 
record, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
16 May 55.

On 30 Nov 56, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for disorderly conduct.  He was reduced in grade to 
airman basic.

On 16 Jan 57, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for failure to repair.  He received two hours of 
extra duty per day for a period of 14 days.

On 24 Jan 57, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment, for being drunk.  He received 15 days restriction. 

On 24 Jan 57, the applicant was recommended by his commander for 
discharge.  The basis for this recommendation was the applicant 
exhibited an inability and/or lack of desire to learn plus the 
fact he has made no progress in training in his career field.

On 4 Mar 57, the discharge authority approved a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge.

On 18 Apr 57, the applicant was furnished a General (Under 
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 
11 months, and 3 days of active service.   


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the 
applicant on 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office.


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 an 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the 
applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to 
determine if the applicant’s 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-2014-00113 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00113 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.

						



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03986

    Original file (BC-2003-03986.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 May 57, he received an Article 15 for failure to repair for squadron detail. On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the administrative discharge action and waived his entitlement to appear before a board of officers and requested discharge in lieu of board proceedings. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01649

    Original file (BC 2014 01649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Nov 58, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03269

    Original file (BC 2014 03269.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends that during a FBI background check, he discovered they have him listed as dishonorably discharged. The applicant did receive an honorable discharge when his dishonorable discharge was suspended and his DD Form 214 properly annotates an honorable discharge. Should the applicant provide evidence to show that his Air Force records are in error, we would be willing to reconsider his request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01003

    Original file (BC 2014 01003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01003 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive active duty credit for the period of time he spent in the Army National Guard (ANG) prior to enlisting in the Air Force. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02023

    Original file (BC-2003-02023.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 18 days of active duty service (excludes 126 days lost time due to being AWOL, extra duty and confinement). The applicant was properly evaluated for evidence of mental illness at the time of his discharge and none was found. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02164

    Original file (BC-2004-02164.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 Jul 04. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900471

    Original file (9900471.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Feb 57, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge proceedings nor provide facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge he received. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02093

    Original file (BC 2014 02093.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02552

    Original file (BC-2010-02552.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He never drank alcohol prior to joining the Air Force at the age of 17. During his time in service, he received the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and was promoted three months prior to his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00146

    Original file (BC-2003-00146.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits personal statements and copies of her father’s DD Form 214 and Statement of Service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). After considering the evidence and testimony, the Board of Officers determined that the former member should be discharged with an undesirable discharge because of unfitness.