AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02776
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
'
EF3 2 5
Applicant requests that his general '(under honorable conditions)
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 Mrs. Barbara A . Westgate, Mr. Kenneth L.
Reinertson, and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., considered this application
on 28 Jan 99 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
I
BARBARA A. WESTGATE u
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr 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
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 AFPCDPPRS
I
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4713
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Recor
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman second class, was discharged from the Air
Force 22 Sep 64 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Unsuitability-Apathy, defective attitude
Evaluation Officer Hearing) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He served
02 years 03 months and 17 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
Basis for Reauest. Applicant claims he was not kicked out of the Air Force, he requested
release for non-compliance of promises made at high school recruiting session. Applicant makes
allegation concerning being made many false promises fi-om his recruiter concerning basic
training, etc.
Facts. On 14 Sep 64, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary discharge
action had been initiated against him with a view to effecting his discharge based on his apathy,
defective attitude and inability to expand effort constructively. Commander indicated that it was
very clearly evidenced that he lack potential value to the Air Force. Applicant was given a Letter
of Admonishment for operating a government vehicle on base in a reckless and irresponsible
manner. In addition, he was given a personal counseling as a result of failing his proficiency test
for upgrading. The reason for failure appeared to be poor attitude toward his self study.
Commander advised that applicant had wrote him a letter, in which he, among other things, stated
he wanted out of the Air Force, hated his assignment, was depressed, and would probably go
crazy if retained at his current base. As a result of his defective attitude and the letter to the
commander, applicant was sent to the base hospital where it was determined that he was unfit for
military service and administrative discharge action should be taken. An Evaluation 0-fficer was
duly appointed an interviewed the applicant and made a recommendation that the applicant should
be given an administrative separation for unsuitability and be hrnished a general discharge.
Applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in rebuttal to the action being
recommended, but he declined to do so. The case was reviewed by the base legal office and
found to legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved the
recommendation for discharge on 22 Sep 64 and directed that the applicant be hrnished a general
discharge certificate.
Discussion. This case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or
irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. The discharge complies with directives in effect
at the time of his discharge. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and
appropriate action was taken.
Recommendation. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor
provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we
recommend applicant’s request be denied. He has not filed a timely request.
JOHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
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). Requested 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). Applicant did not identi5 any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the narrative reason for discharge he received.
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.
Complete copies of the cover letter and the Record of Proceedings are attached at Exhibit F. In letters dated 22 October and 3 December 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and asked for an upgraded discharge with a corresponding RE code. We find no error or injustice regarding his general discharge and, since the discharge drove the applicant’s RE code, the “2B” he received is valid. Exhibit H. FBI Response.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00510
Complete copies of the cover letter and the Record of Proceedings are attached at Exhibit F. In letters dated 22 October and 3 December 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and asked for an upgraded discharge with a corresponding RE code. We find no error or injustice regarding his general discharge and, since the discharge drove the applicant’s RE code, the “2B” he received is valid. Exhibit H. FBI Response.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions 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. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharg&progessing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the discharge he received.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00266 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. The applicant has not identified any specific errors in the discharge processing or provided...
It appears that the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the majority of the Board is persuaded the applicant has been a productive member of society. Applicant's...
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 Opinions DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS A I R FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER RANDOLPH A I R FORCE BASE TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13 The applicant, while serving...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). He received an RE code of “2H: Participating in Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for drugs, or has failed to complete Track 4.” Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he received a general discharge for “A Pattern of Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” This type of...