RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01442
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 be changed
from “fraudulent” to “erroneous” enlistment and that his separation
code be changed accordingly.
___________________________________________________________________
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 letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial. A
complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the evaluation and stated that when he
was processed at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) he
did notify one of the civilian employees about his previous
enlistments in the military. He states that he was told not to put
it down because it was less than 180 days total active service.
The applicant states that he feels it is unfair that MEPS can tell
a person not to put something on their paperwork and not be held
accountable for their actions. He provides a list of NCOs that he
states can be contacted to verify his character and the type of
soldier he was.
The applicant’s complete response is at 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. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of the case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for their
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the majority finds no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
___________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board 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 23 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request.
Ms. Crerar voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not
desire to submit a minority report. The following documentary
evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 May 01.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Aug 01.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
On 11 Sep 84, applicant was notified that his commander was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for drug abuse. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. We therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
He further states he received a rating of “three” on his last EPR because he was not within the weight standards. The EPR closing Jun 00 indicates he continued to struggle to meet Air Force weight standards, which negatively affected his overall promotion potential and showed his failure to meet the standards over a prolonged period of time. Further, they state that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or evaluator support to warrant upgrading the report.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-01442A
On 5 Sep 02, the applicant submitted a copy of a DD Form 293, dated 17 May 01, with the same request as above (Exhibit G). The applicant submitted a new DD Form 149 on 26 Oct 02 requesting that he be allowed to reenlist in the Air Force (Exhibit I). Exhibit J.
AF Form 988 (Leave Request/Authorization) provided by the applicant reflects that on 7 Mar 01, he requested 30 days of leave from 19 Mar 01 to 19 Apr 01, with a DOS of 19 Apr 01. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Noncommissioned Officer-In-Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that although the applicant states his DOS should have been 19 Apr 01, the separation documents in...
AF Form 988 (Leave Request/Authorization) provided by the applicant reflects that on 7 Mar 01, he requested 30 days of leave from 19 Mar 01 to 19 Apr 01, with a DOS of 19 Apr 01. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Noncommissioned Officer-In-Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and indicated that although the applicant states his DOS should have been 19 Apr 01, the separation documents in...
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 1 June 2001 under provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time. A complete copy of the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code the applicant received is the appropriate code for those members separated "involuntarily with an honorable discharge or an entry level separation without characterization of service (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 May 2002, for...
As of this date, this office has received no response. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his separation code should remain the same since he did in fact, voluntarily request discharge for the good of the service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 59 and was discharged on 20 May 63 with an undesirable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s reconstructed military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. In response to the Board's request, the FBI provided a copy of...
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Exhibit B. A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.