Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01839
Original file (BC 2014 01839.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01839

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge is a result of three Article 15s he received.  He 
was told he could try to get his discharge upgraded in six 
months.  He has been married for 51 years and tried to live a 
good life.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he has lived a good life and 
has been married for 51 years.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 January 1956, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On or about 2 October 1956, the applicant wrongfully and 
maliciously poured beer on a bust of a national monument of the 
Republic of Turkey, causing insult to the Republic of Turkey, in 
violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ).  He was found guilty at a Summary-Court Martial and was 
punished with a $35.00 fine.

On 26 March 1957, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order to 
stay in his barracks until it was time for him to go on duty, in 
violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  He was found guilty at a 
Summary-Court Martial and was punished with a reduction to the 
grade of airman basic (E-1) and a forfeiture of $20.00.

On 10 April 1957, the applicant failed to go to his official 
place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ and disobeyed a 
lawful order to get dressed and ready for duty, in violation of 
Article 92.  He was found guilty at a Summary-Court Martial and 
was confined at hard labor for 30 days.
In a letter dated 15 April 1957, a psychiatrist determined the 
applicant was diagnosed with “Emotional Instability Reaction, 
Acute, Mild.  The psychiatrist further concluded there were no 
psychiatric centra-indications to any proposed administrative or 
legal action.

In April 1957, the applicant’s commander notified him that he 
was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 
39-17, Discharge of Airmen Because of Unfitness.

On 23 April 1957, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and that legal counsel had made available 
to him.  He waived his right to a discharge board.

On 10 May 1957, the commander approved the applicant’s 
discharge.

On 13 May 1957, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 7 June 1957, he received a UOTHC discharge.  He served on 
active duty for one year, four months and two days.

On 4 May 2014, 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 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 is sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge on that 
basis.  Should he provide documentation pertaining to his post-
service accomplishments and activities, this Board would be 
willing to review the materials for possible reconsideration of 
his request based on clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought.

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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


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 was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 12 March 2015, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
01839 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 April 2014.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, 4 May 2014.





 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01143

    Original file (BC-2003-01143.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    He further acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under conditions other than honorable and receive an undesirable discharge that could deprive him of any rights to receive veterans’ benefits in the future. On 30 August 1957, the base and wing commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an undesirable discharge. The discharge authority approved the discharge on 9 September 1957 and ordered an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102031

    Original file (0102031.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02031 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The Board also invited the applicant provide additional evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. In a letter, dated 15 April 2002, the applicant states that he has no excuse for the way he acted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03278

    Original file (BC 2013 03278.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM states that if AFPC confirms that the member received an honorable discharge, the Board should set-aside his BCD. On 26 Feb 1957, the Air Force Board of Review found the approved finding of guilty and the sentence correct in law and fact. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701759

    Original file (9701759.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The sentence was adjudged on 24 October 1957 and, on 31 October 1957, the sentence was approved and the record of trial was forwarded for action under Article 65b. The record of trial was forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the USAF for review by a Board of Review. The second AWOL took place the day following applicant’s release from confinement for the first AWOL.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606843C070209

    Original file (9606843C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 November 1956, the sentence was approved, but the execution of that portion adjudging a DD was suspended until his release from confinement or until completion of the appellate review, whichever was the later date. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00158

    Original file (BC-2008-00158.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander stated the following reasons for the proposed discharge: a. On 20 November 1957, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic (E-1) under the provisions of AFR 39-17, paragraph 4c, with a UOTHC service characterization. In response to our request, the applicant provided post-service information which is attached at Exhibit E. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03647

    Original file (BC-2005-03647.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 September 1957, his commander requested the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he would be discharged for unfitness. DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at that time and, was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601394

    Original file (9601394.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 26 December 1956, the applicant was honorably discharged and on 27 December 1956, reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 6 years. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 26 May 1958, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02832

    Original file (BC-2003-02832.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Discharge Authority approved his request for discharge and ordered an undesirable discharge on 9 April 1957. Based on the foregoing clemency considerations, we believe that his discharge should be upgraded to “under honorable conditions.” _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 April 1957, he was discharged with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03067

    Original file (BC-2005-03067.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03067 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 April 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. Applicant was given a second chance and the Air Force was willing to allow him to serve out...