RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00573
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to General.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told by his captain his discharge would be a general
discharge because he had all good service time. His parents
intercepted his mail so he was unable to sign a form.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
17 Oct 62.
On 26 Nov 63, the applicant was notified of his commanders
intent to recommend he be given a general discharge for
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and
military authorities under the provisions of AFR 39-17,
Paragraph 4a. The reasons for this action were as follows:
a. The applicant received an Article 15, dated 3 Jun 63,
for being AWOL for the period of 21 May 63 to 24 May 63,
punishment consisted of forfeiture $20.00 pay per month for two
months, reduction to the grade of Airman Basic, and correctional
custody for 30 days.
b. On 26 May 63, he was drunk and brawling, arrested by
civilian police and released to military authorities. On 10 Jun
63, he told his administrative officer during a counseling
session he was going to continue to get into trouble until he
received a discharge, he did not want to be in the military.
c. On 3 Aug 63 until 5 Aug 63, he failed to report to
duty, he was counselled on 14 Aug 63 for this action.
d. On 31 Aug 63 and 18 Sep 63, he was three hours late for
duty on both days, he was counselled.
e. On 6 Nov 63, he failed to obey a lawful order to report
to his squadron orderly room. Punishment consisted of Article
15 and correctional custody for 30 days.
On 2 Dec 63, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action
and waived his right to a hearing before a board or submit
statements in his own behalf.
On 24 Jan 64, the staff judge advocate found the action legally
sufficient and recommended the applicant be furnished a general
discharge.
On 7 Feb 64, the discharge authority approved the applicants
discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge and that the unit commander provide a statement
certifying that the applicant was made aware that the type of
discharge he received was determined on the basis of his conduct
and/or performance during his service and that the commander did
not in any way advise or infer that the applicants future good
behavior as a civilian would be a basis for reviewing the
undesirable character of service.
On 13 Feb 64, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge and
was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 24 days of active
service, excluding lost time from 21 May 63 to 23 May 63.
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days. In response, the applicant submitted additional
documents, to include a copy of his FBI report (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, 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. Although, the
applicant contends he was told he would be given a general
discharge, he has provided no evidence which would lead us to
believe the ultimate characterization of his service was
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly
harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. While we
note the applicants commander initially recommended he be
furnished a general (under honorable conditions) character of
service, and the subsequent legal review recommended the
applicant be issued said character of service, the discharge
authority, in the exercise of his discretionary authority,
determined that an undesirable discharge was appropriate to the
circumstances. Therefore, in view of the fact the applicant has
presented no evidence that would lead us to believe that the
discharge authoritys ultimate determination resulted from an
error or represented an abuse of said authority we are not
persuaded that corrective action is warranted. 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.
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-2014-00573 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 14.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01324
His second Article 15, received for discharging a weapon required he spend 30 days in correctional custody and forfeit $41.00 per month for two months. He was discharged in the grade of airman basic (AB) effective and with a date of rank of 18 Sep 64. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00887
On 12 Oct 71, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicants request to upgrade his discharge, but denied the request because the facts of record in his case did not warrant changing the type of discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to upgrade the applicants Undesirable discharge. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02638
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02638 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) 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 for us to conclude that the applicants post-service activities overcome the misconduct for...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03089
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03089 XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge. At the time of his discharge, he was 17 years old and realizes he was not fit for military service. Specifically, the commander noted the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00848
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2010-00848 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ____________________________________________________________ _____ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The Board recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02921
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02921 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we find the evidence presented is not sufficient for us to conclude that the applicants post-service activities overcome the misconduct for which he was...
The diagnosis was defective attitude with no evidence of classifiable psychiatric disease. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Sep 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00411
The applicant states he did not know the citation existed until May 64. After a thorough review of his submission and the supporting documentation he provided, to include excerpts from his medical records, these documents do not persuade us that he should be awarded the Purple Heart Medal. However, should the applicant provide the above information or testimony from other former members of his unit who were with him at that time and can account for his injury, he may, of course, submit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03005
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03005 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His (general) under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. He also was informed the commander that discharged him for not meeting weight standards was ultimately discharged for wrongfully discharging individuals. Exhibit D. Letter,...