RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02931
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The reason for her separation be changed from “Fraudulent Entry” to
“Unlikely to Adjust to Military Life.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and is of the
opinion that no change in the records is indicated and her request
should be denied. A complete copy of this evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and
stated that the applicant neither submitted any new evidence,
identified any errors in the discharge processing, nor provided facts
that support changing the reason for her separation. Accordingly,
DPPRS recommended applicant’s records remain unchanged and her request
be denied. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10
May 1999 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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. After carefully
considering the applicant’s submission, the Board majority is
unpersuaded that her narrative reason for separation should be
changed. The Board majority is in agreement with the opinions and
recommendations of the respective Air Force offices and adopts the
rationale expressed as the basis for their decision that the applicant
has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error
or an injustice. Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to the
contrary, the Board majority finds 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.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 24 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Vestal and Mr. Wheeler voted to deny applicant's request. Mr.
Peterson voted to grant the applicant's request but did not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
19 Feb 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Apr 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 May 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-02931
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
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....
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
Subsequent to this time, the applicant has earned sufficient points to be credited with a satisfactory year of Federal service for the R/R year 30 Apr 98 to 29 Apr 99. DP indicated that in accordance with the governing Air Force manual, a year of satisfactory Federal service for retirement is awarded when a member earns a minimum of 50 points in their full R/R year. After a careful review of the evidence of record, we note that, except for the retirement/retention period in question, the...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D, E and F). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board concludes that no relief is warranted. As he had no unfitting condition, the majority of the Board agrees with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that consideration...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02541 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1960 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable or, in the alternative, his first (honorable) enlistment be separated from his second enlistment so he can receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02931 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted relief from having to reimburse the government for the cost of his education incurred under the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP). The account was transferred from the Air Force to DFAS on 3 Mar...
Furthermore, any endorsing official in the chain of command could have recommended upgrade to the MSM at the time the AFCM was being processed. A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant dated 8 Apr 99.
The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...
Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jun 90 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the discharge authority direct the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. On 12 Nov 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her...