AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AUG 1 4 1996
.
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98-01141
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to
general.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The facts surrounding his separation from the Air Force are unknown
inasmuch as no military records were available.
After careful consideration of applicant's request, we found
insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. Based upon the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs
and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the
applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance with appropriate
directives. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to favorably
consider this application.
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. Richard A. Peterson, and
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, considered this application on 4 August
1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. -- 1552.
MAdiTHA MAUST '
Panel Chair
Exhibit :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
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). The applicant’s responses are at Exhibit E. 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 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). The applicant’s responses are at Exhibit E. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00447
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). The applicant’s responses are at Exhibit E. 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 16 September 1996. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (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.
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). 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge and changed of reason for discharge (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request for change of his RE Code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge and changed of reason for discharge (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request for change of his RE Code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The appropriate Air Force off ice 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). 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 appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.