ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02991
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
RESUME OF CASE
On 1 October 1997, applicant requests that the Enlisted Performance Reports
(EPRs) closing 31 January 1996 and 1 August 1997 and the Letters of
Reprimand (LORs) be declared void. On 28 January 1998, the Board
considered and denied his requests. A complete copy of the Report of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.
In a letter dated 22 August 1998, applicant stated the following:
“On my DD214 it states the reason for my discharge was due to a Court
Martial. This big mistake are causing major problems with work search.
Another mistake on my DD214 is box 17 which states my dental requirements
was in satisfactory condition.”
A copy of his complete letter is attached at Exhibit F.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separation Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed applicant’s request pertaining to a change in the
reason for separation and states that the Department of Defense and Air
Force instructions state the narrative reason for separation for members
who voluntarily request discharge in lieu of court martial action will have
the narrative reason indicate “Triable by Court Martial.” Therefore,
applicant’s DD 214 is correct and does not require a change in the
narrative reason for separation. A complete copy of the evaluation is
attached at Exhibit G.
In regard to applicant’s request pertaining to dental treatment, an
administrative change was made to block 17, of applicant’s DD Form 214, to
indicate that the member was not provided complete dental examination
within 90 days prior to separation. In addition, an administrative error
was notice in block 24, Character of Service, on the DD Form 214.
Applicant’s character of service should have been under other than
honorable conditions rather than general, under honorable conditions. A
complete copy of AFPC/DPPRR letter, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit H.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 8 March 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
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 probable 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 27 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Copy of Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Feb 98.
Exhibit F. Applicant's Letter, dated 22 Aug 98.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 99.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, character statements, a college acceptance letter, a statement from a clinical psychologist, his student training report and performance summary, an outprocessing checklist dated 13 Jan 98, a mental health evaluation dated 26 Jan 98, the commander’s memo directing a mental evaluation dated 27 Jan 98, the disenrollment action dated 6 Feb 98 and signed by the commander on 9 Feb 98, a notification letter dated 6 Feb 98, and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03512 INDEX CODE: A61.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided several post-service letters. Exhibit B.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and states that he is enclosing a statement from the First Sergeant which supports his client’s contention. The statement from his first sergeant states that, with the Air Force in a downsizing mode, he recommended that the applicant be separated. DOUGLAS J....
The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who shared his barracks. DOUGLAS...
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that because the applicant’s master personnel records were destroyed in a fire, they are unable to make a recommendation. The evidence of record reflects that the...
On 7 September 1983, applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully having in his possession, and using, some quantity of marijuana on or about 4 August 1983, with imposed punishment as reduction in grade to airman, with a new date of rank 7 September 1983, and ordered to forfeit $100.00. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, is of the opinion that, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant’s disorder, the applicant’s request for change of reason for discharge should be granted. The applicant was given an entry level separation with uncharacterized service after a mental health evaluation had determined that he suffered from an adjustment disorder of such...
While separating from the Air Force, he was told that he would only be given a paid move to his HOR and anything else was up to him. DPPRS indicated that the applicant elected to separate at Air Force Base as indicated in his application to separate under the Palace Chase program. In view of the above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below, which will provide the applicant with the proper relief.
The commander states that there is no question that returning the applicant to active duty and allowing his promotion would benefit the Air Force. On 10 January 1998, the applicant was notified of a short tour assignment to Osan AB, Korea and declined the assignment. The applicant’s application for retirement was processed correctly.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00805
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that the dates on the AFCM certificate are what he is trying to correct and have permanently recorded on his DD Form 214. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission, the Board was sufficiently persuaded that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to...