RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02072
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husbands Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded
to general (under honorable conditions).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the time of her husbands discharge, the reason he was
absent without authority was because he wanted to be there for
the birth of his child.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the decedents DD Form 214, Report of Separation
from the Armed Forces of the United States, on 10 Jul 48, he
enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 14 Feb 52, the decedent pled not guilty and on 26 Feb 52, he
was found guilty of one specification of being Absent Without
Leave (AWOL), in violation of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) and was sentenced at a Special Court-
Martial to a BCD, forfeiture of $30.00 per month for 6 months
and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 26 May 52, the convening authority approved the finding and
sentence and directed that the sentence be executed.
On 23 Jun 52, the decedent received a BCD and was credited with
3 years, 1 month, and 24 days of total active service.
On 24 Sep 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit C).
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 decedents post-service activities, there is no way for us
to determine if the decedents accomplishments since leaving the
service warrant such an action. 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-2014-02072 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-02072 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 14, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05575
Her husbands records be corrected to show that he was on active duty in the Army from 21 Apr 52 to 29 Jan 55. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicants request to correct the decedents service dates. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03337
DPAPP requested the applicants DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect Indochina Service as Yes. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIC recommends denial of the applicants request to change the decedents Primary Specialty Number and Title. DPSIC states that Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 42372 and the AFSC title (Aircrew Egress Systems Repairmen), captured on the decedents DD Form 214 were correct at the time of his 23 Jun 1977...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02774
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02774 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husbands records be corrected to remove his bad conduct discharge (BCD). Furthermore, it appears that on 30 Jul 96 the former members mother was provided a written response to her letter from SAF/LLI which explained both the relief...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00704
He submitted DD Form 1882, for former spouse and child coverage; however, DFAS-CL did not honor the election because it was not received until after the one-year eligibility period. However, while the applicant contends the election for former spouse coverage was made within the required time, no evidence has been provided, to our satisfaction, that she or the deceased former member submitted a valid former spouse election during the first year following their divorce. THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03486
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03486 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late husbands record be changed to reflect he made an election for immediate spouse coverage under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03848
Notwithstanding the fact the applicant has provided a sworn statement alleging that she was not aware her husband did not elect SBP coverage and AFAFCs failure to retain documentation of that notification, the history transaction annotated in the decedent's record confirms standard procedures regarding the spouse notification requirement was properly accomplished. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00389
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her late husbands record is in error because at the time of his death, he was eligible for Reserve retirement pursuant to Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 12731, thereby making his spouse eligible to receive RCSBP effective the date of his death, 19 Oct 09. The member was notified, by letter, of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP in 2000 and that he had 90 days in which to make an...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04154
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04154 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late-husbands Bad Conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. The BCD is more than a service characterization; it is a punishment for the crime the service member committed while on active duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03097
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The effective date of his election was 28 Sep 82; however, the election was voided by his 13 Jul 84 death. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03333
Prior to 14 Nov 52, the applicants records reflect the following four Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations on unspecified dates: 1. On 12 May 53, the Judge Advocate prepared a Petition for Grant of Review asking for a review of the conviction; however, at the time the applicant absented himself without authority. We find no evidence which indicates the applicants service characterization, which had its basis in his court-martial conviction and was a part of the sentence of...