RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00370
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In 1963 he was drafted and had a bad left knee so he joined the
United States Air Force. Because he had three years of printing
industry experience, the recruiter told him to sign up for the
General field. Upon finishing basic training, he received
orders for Food Service for which he was told to talk to his
Commanding Officer (CO) about transferring to printing.
After reporting to his duty station, he talked with his CO who
told him they did not have printing. In addition, his CO
explained he would not get a replacement if he transferred him,
so he would be a cook.
The applicant explains that he did his job as a cook and while
his name was brought up in promotion discussions, he believes he
was passed over for someone who had been there longer.
He tried to join USAA and was advised that his general discharge
prevents him from joining.
He further explains that he was a very good airman, was never
late and always worked hard from start to finish while he was
working under his shift leader and first cook.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Jan
1964.
On 6 Oct 64, he was notified by his commander that he was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-16, Discharge for Unsuitability. The
specific reasons for his action was the applicants inability to
progress to level three in his career field due to his lack of
desire and incentive. He did not meet minimum Air Force
standards and had an apathetic, indifferent attitude as
evidenced by statements from members of his organization.
On 9 Oct 64, an evaluations officer reviewed the applicants
case and explained the effect of his recommendation for a
general discharge. The applicant elected against submitting
additional statements on his behalf. The evaluations officer
stated the applicant was extremely immature and did not wish to
admit to the fact that he will occasionally have to perform
duties not in accordance with his desires. The evaluation
officer recommended that he be given a general discharge.
On 9 Oct 64, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
discharged and furnished a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge certificate.
On 9 Oct 64, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman
third class after serving 8 months and 17 days of active
service.
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). 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, to include his
rebuttal response, 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,
we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend
granting relief on that basis. 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-2014-00370 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Information Bulletin, not dated.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00457
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05390
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05390 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he served in Thailand (administratively corrected) and Vietnam. However, there was no evidence provided or located in the applicants personnel records to substantiate he served in Vietnam. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00394
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would very much like the Board to review his file and upgrade his discharge. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to recommend granting relief on that basis. 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01555
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be changed to honorable. On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit c). In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00171
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSNISSAN AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I I MEMBER SITTING 1 I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 2 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 1 3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 ( BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDlTIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE ( TAPE RECORDMG OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE I HEARING DATE 21 Oct 2004 CASE NUMBER FD-2004-00171 1 Case heard via video teleconference between...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01694
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01694 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect award of the Presidential Unit Citation with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (PUC w/BOLC) and any other awards that he may be entitled to. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01529
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His military record is correct that he was found guilty of certain petty crimes during his service in the Air Force in 1968 and that he was Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) and received confinement. ...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00198
T WEST, SUITE 40 AFB, TX 78150-4742 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 I AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used I 1 I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00198 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05548
On 20 Jan 61, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of the applicants request for service credit in Vietnam. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01949
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) should have been initiated; instead he was administratively discharged. On 15 Oct 2012, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.