RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00378
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was furnished an undesirable discharge for refusing the
orders of his first sergeant to replace uniforms at his own
expense that were stolen from him.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records are not available.
According to a National Archives and Records Administration Form
13038 (REV. 10-89), dated 27 Aug 91, he entered the Regular Air
Force on 6 Jul 56.
On 24 Sep 57, the applicant was furnished an undesirable
discharge, separated under AFR 39-22 (SDN 284 Misconduct: civil
court conviction).
According to information provided by Air Force Office of Special
Investigation, a criminal record pertaining to the applicant
does exist.
On 27 Oct 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit D).
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
applicants post-service activities, there is no way for us to
determine if the applicants 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-2014-00378 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00378 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 14.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00378
______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 14 May 1982 to 26 July 1984. The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) on 26 July 1984 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service and a narrative reason for discharge of Misconduct Drug Abuse. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01322
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...
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 | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02418 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC). 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 C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02393
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02393 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Considering the applicants overall record of service, we are not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 14, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03082
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03082 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His pay grade on his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, dated 23 Aug 95, be changed to Senior Airman (E-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00717
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00717 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect award of the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC). The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service record, are...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03316
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03316 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgrade to a General discharge. The applicant waived any right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board, and was notified of his right to legal counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf. Based on the available evidence of record,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05869
STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Sep 61, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his undesirable discharge. On 23 May 67, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00935
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. 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 applicants post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Exhibit D. Federal Bureau of...