AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
JUL 2 7 i998
IN THE MATTGR OF:
DOCKET NO: 97-03794
COUNSEL: None
- --
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests her general discharge be upgraded to
honorable. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Ms. Martha Maust, Mr. Robert W. Zook and Mr.
Kenneth L. Reinertson considered this application on 23 July 1998
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
-
. -
W T H A MAUdT
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT O F THE A I R FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
MAR 1 8 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCLDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4713
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman second class, was discharged fiom the Air
Force 19 Oct 53 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Unsuitability) and received an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge. She served 01 year, 05 months and 29 days total active
service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting that her discharge be upgraded to honorable.
Basis for Reauest. Applicant states that she did a good job while in the Air Force and followed
all rules of conduct and never got into trouble.
Facts. On 03 Sep 53, applicant was advised by her commander that she was to appear before a
Board of Officers who would make recommendation concerning her discharge fiom the Air Force
because of evidence of her emotional immaturity and instability, Applicant appeared before a
Board of Officers without counsel. Applicant had indicated to various officers that she desired
reassignment to another section. Each officer had interviewed her and counseled her, in an
attempt to assign her to duties within the squadron. Upon reassignment to a new job, after a
period of break-in, she appeared to lose all interest and had been a constant source of trouble in
that she could not be counted upon to perfam the duties assigned to her. She was seen by the
base psychiatrist who after an 18 day observation and study, recommended that she be
discharged for inaptitude and unsuitability. The discharge board’s findings and recommendations
were: that the applicant was unsuitable for hrther military service and recommended that she be
discharged because of unsuitability and she be given an under honorable conditions (general)
discharge. The discharge authority approved the Board’s recommendation and directed that
applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16 and that she be issued an under
honorable conditions (general) discharge certificate.
Discussion. This case has been reviewed and the discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The
records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
,
Recommendation. Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in the
discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge she received.
Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied. She has not filed a timely request.
JOHN C. WOOTEN, GS-9
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
9703794
- . . . . . -. .
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. Applicant appeared before a Board of Officers without counsel convened to review the pertinent facts and circumstances and make recommendation to the discharge authority if he should be discharged fiom the service.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Applicant's master personnel record does not contain a discharge case however, record does contain a report of proceeding whereby the applicant was reduced fiom grade of Corporal to Private First Class on 12 Jul48. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade in the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). EDDIE D. SWINT, MSgt, USAF Chief, Career Enhancement Branch Military Personnel Division DEPARTMENT OF T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRP 550 C Street West, Suite 1 1 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47...
under honorable submission is at The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C, Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 2 c DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4713 SUBJECT: Application for Correction...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR L t r Forwarding Advisory Opinion D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E HEADQUARTERS...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS I i U.S. AIR FORCE I ~ s,, MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB 7X 78 150-47 13 i DEC 1 6 887 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records The applicant, while serving in the...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Consistent with his findings, the evaluation officer recommended discharge with a general discharge certificate. The records indicate member's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . FACTS: The applicant states that his discharge would not have occurred had it not been for a report filed by a psychologist who evaluated him by direction of his commander. Applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received, change his...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). A medical evaluation, diet counseling(s), 90-day exercise program, and monthly checks are provided as rehabilitative support for individuals who exceed weight and body fat standards. The Interim Message Change (IMC) 93-1, to AFR 35-1 1, 5 Feb 91, was not effective until 30 Jun 93.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . RECOMMENDATION: None; -oes not have the required time on active duty to qualify for educational benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant is requesting her DD Form 214 to state that her discharge was for the good of the government.