RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01795
INDEX CODE 110.02 131.09
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The language in line 28 of his DD Form 214 be removed [i.e., Narrative
Reason: Unsuitability. - Apathy, Defective Attitude - Board Waiver]
and his grade of airman first class be restored.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his submission, a complete copy
of which is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The contested DD Form 214 erroneously reflected an honorable discharge
when, in fact, the discharge authority directed in a letter dated 8
October 1979 that the applicant be discharged with a general
characterization of service. This error has been administratively
corrected, as indicated by Exhibit H.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the data furnished,
they were unable to locate an arrest record Exhibit C.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceeding.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends
that, since no error or injustice was apparent in his review of the
appeal, the case should be denied. The narrative reason is in
accordance with Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force guidance.
A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the case
and provided the pertinent information regarding the applicant’s
demotion. The Chief defers to the Board’s decision.
A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
Pursuant to an inquiry from the AFBCMR Staff, the Military Personnel
Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, again reviewed the appeal and
advised that the DD Form 214 had been amended to reflect the
characterization directed by the discharge authority.
A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the first two Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the applicant on 24 August 1998 for review and comment within 30
days. On 15 October 1998, the applicant was invited to provide post-
service information. The additional advisory (Exhibit H) was
forwarded to the applicant on 6 January 1999 for review and comment.
The applicant was again invited to submit post-service information as
well as comment on the downgrade in his discharge characterization
from honorable to general. 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 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 probable error or injustice. After thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
not persuaded the narrative reason for his discharge should be
changed or his grade restored. Further, the recent administrative
downgrade of his discharge to correctly reflect the level approved by
the discharge authority is appropriate. The applicant’s general
discharge was found to be legally sufficient in 1979 and we agree that
the characterization of and the narrative reason for the discharge are
still appropriate to the existing circumstances. The applicant has
been advised that the Board may consider upgrading his discharge based
on equity and clemency after reviewing other factors such as his
background, overall quality of service, and post-service activities
and accomplishments. He has been afforded several opportunities to
provide such information, but as of this date no response has been
received by this office. Although he asserts he has changed, we have
received no evidence that he has been a productive member of society.
Therefore, as we find no error or injustice in the adverse actions
taken against him, we have no choice but to recommend this appeal be
denied.
_________________________________________________________________
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 April 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 98, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Aug 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Aug 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 98.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Oct 98.
Exhibit H. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jan 99.
PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02809 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) for the 93A5 cycle (promotions effective Sep 92 - Aug 93) in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 545X2 and to technical sergeant (E-6) for the 98E6 cycle (promotions effective Aug 98 -...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02991 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to one that will allow her entry into the Air Force or Air Force Reserve. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states that following separation, the applicant was seen in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) system where a follow-up x-ray actually showed a healing stress fracture of the left tibial metaphysis and he was awarded 10% disability based on this finding. Had a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) been accomplished with the proper diagnosis (stress fracture of the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant. The applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed to provide any information/support from the other members of his rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the...
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00482
The 22 August 1997 MHE [performed by the same doctor] advised that the applicant had continued to receive treatment. He contended that his squadron did not return him to the flight line as was recommended by the first MHE. Consequently, we conclude the applicant’s SPD code should be changed to “KFF.” His RE code of “2C” should remain as it reflects his involuntary honorable discharge and, in view of the apparently valid psychiatric diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, we do not believe he...
The 22 August 1997 MHE [performed by the same doctor] advised that the applicant had continued to receive treatment. He contended that his squadron did not return him to the flight line as was recommended by the first MHE. Consequently, we conclude the applicant’s SPD code should be changed to “KFF.” His RE code of “2C” should remain as it reflects his involuntary honorable discharge and, in view of the apparently valid psychiatric diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, we do not believe he...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00400
Based on applicant’s DOR to Senior Airman (SrA), he was eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt for cycle 04E5; however, he did not possess the required 5 skill level by the promotion eligibility cutoff date (31 Mar 04) in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2. The applicant’s name appeared on a roster reflecting that he was in training status code (TSC) “F” for this cycle as he still had not attained the required 5 skill level by the Promotion Effective Cutoff Date (PECD) 31...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02780 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Applicant requests his reenlistment eligibility code (RE) be changed to allow him entry into the Air National Guard (ANG) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...