RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02991
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded
to Honorable.
His date of birth on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge, by corrected to reflect
6 Feb 50. (Administratively corrected via DD Form 215,
Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active
Duty, dated 7 Dec 73.)
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not do anything while serving that would be considered
misconduct; therefore, he should not have received a General
(Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.
His birthday is listed wrong on his DD Form 214.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his
birth certificate and current identification card which lists
his correct birth date.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Feb
71.
On 16 Dec 71, the applicant accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial
Punishment, for failing to obey a lawful order, a violation of
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was
reduced in grade to airman basic, ordered to forfeit $110
dollars a month for two months, and ordered into Correctional
Custody for a period of 30 days.
On 21 Dec 71, at 2213 hours, the applicants Duty Status was
changed from Present for Duty to Absent Without Leave (AWOL).
It was noted on AF Form 1098, Personnel Action Request, the
applicant was discovered missing from Correctional Custody.
On 19 Jan 72, at 2213 hours, the applicants Duty Status was
changed from AWOL to Desertion. It was noted on AF Form 1098,
the applicant has been AWOL since 21 Dec 71.
On 20 Jan 72, at 0800 hours, the applicants Duty Status was
changed from Desertion to Present for Duty. It is noted on AF
Form 1098, the applicant voluntarily reported back to base.
On 21 Jan 72, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial and sentenced to forfeit $75.00 per month for five
months and to be confined at lard labor for five months.
On 6 Sep 72, the applicant was notified by his commander he
intended to discharge him based on Unsuitability in accordance
with AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct,
Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the
Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Chapter
2, Section A, paragraph 2-4c. The commander recommended the
applicant be furnished a General discharge.
On 25 Sep 72, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and
found it legally sufficient.
On 2 Oct 72, the discharge authority approved the applicant for
a General discharge.
On 6 Oct 72, the applicant was furnished a General (Under
Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 11 months
and 1 day of active service.
A request for post-service information was forwarded to the
applicant on 4 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received.
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, we do not consider clemency
to be appropriate. 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-2014-02991 in Executive Session on 2 Jun 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-02991 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Clemency Information Bulletin.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02694
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02694 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. f. On 24 Jun 72, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to repair, forfeited $25 pay and 16 days extra duty. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01509
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01509 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Include foreign-service time for service in Thailand; (administratively corrected) Upgrade his characterization of service from undesirable to honorable; and Change his rank from Airman Basic (AB) to Sergeant...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04348
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-04348 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 Jan 72, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge. He had 107 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02091
In the recommendation for discharge, the commander noted the psychiatrist and Social Actions Officer reported the applicant was a drug abuser who had reported use of marijuana, mescaline, and LSD. At the time of his mental health evaluation, the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and was determined to know right from wrong and possess the capacity to conform his behavior to law and Air Force regulations. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00264 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. - On 5 May 72, applicant received notification of his commander's intent to impose an Article 15 for being AWOL from 24 Apr - 1 May 72, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ....
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01824
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01824 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. Although each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the award of an honorable or general discharge should normally be considered to indicate the absence of aggravating factors. The discharge was properly processed according...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02192
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jan 14, 2009 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general discharge). On 24 Jul 73, the applicant requested a board hearing. Exhibit C. FBI...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03748
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03748 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM). The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 9 Dec 11, a copy of the Air Force...
3 AFBCMR 96- 01136 Therefore, if the AFBCMR overturns his court-martial action, he would only be entitled to have his former grade of airman reinstated with an effective date and date of rank of 3 May 72. Concerning the applicant's request that his court- martial conviction be overturned, we note that 10 USC 1552(f) limits this Board to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing official and action on the sentence of a court-martial for the purpose of clemency. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02975
On 4 Mar 72, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsuitability. The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states his discharge was based entirely on his mental disability. The applicant's case was not eligible for a referral for a Medical Evaluation Board...