Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000567
Original file (0000567.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

               RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-00567
COUNSEL:
NONE
HEARING DESIRED:
NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions upgraded to general or honorable.
(UOTHC
discharge be
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 is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are  contained  in  the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board AFDRB brief. Accordingly, there is  no  need  to  recite  these
facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFDRB considered and denied the applicant's request on  12  Jul  00  and
provided rationale in the examiner's brief.
A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the AFDRB  brief  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.


[pic]
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  careful  consideration  of
applicant's request and the available evidence of record, a majority of  the
Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or  injustice  to   warrant
corrective action. The decision of the AFDRB appears  to  be  based  on  the
evidence of record and has not been rebutted by the applicant.  Absent
persuasive evidence the applicant  was  denied  rights  to  which  entitled,
appropriate regulations were not followed,  or  appropriate  standards  were
not applied, a majority of the board finds no basis to disturb the  existing
record.
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 October 10, 2000, under the provisions of AFI36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial  of  the  application.  Mr.
Terry A. Yonkers voted to upgrade the discharge to general, under  honorable
conditions, but does not wish to submit a  Minority  Report.  The  following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D.
DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 00, w/atchs. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
AFDRB Brief, dated 12 Jul 00, w/atchs. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.
2
























































AFBCMR 00-01633




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed
that:

      The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to XX be corrected  to  show  that  on  16  October  1998,  he  was
discharged  with  service  characterized   as   general   (under   honorable
conditions).








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001323

    Original file (0001323.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802963

    Original file (9802963.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We conclude therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper in characterization of the discharge and was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. AFDRB Brief, dated 15 November 1996.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002053

    Original file (0002053.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFDRB brief was forwarded to 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903197

    Original file (9903197.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Available Master Personnel Records C. AFDRB Brief D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802452

    Original file (9802452.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 9 March 1950 (Exhibit B). 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).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9903124

    Original file (9903124.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 7 October 1999 and 26 September 2000. Applicant's response to the AFDRB is 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. Members of the Board Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Mr. John E. Pettit considered this application on 17 January 2001 in accordance with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803325

    Original file (9803325.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 7 October 1998. The AFDRB brief 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803332

    Original file (9803332.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 8 October 1998. The AFDRB brief 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900420

    Original file (9900420.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00420 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002685

    Original file (0002685.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). 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.