RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO.: 01-01785
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
The applicant requests his general (under honorable conditions) discharge
be upgraded to honorable. The applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot
be verified. The separation document provided by the applicant shows that
he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-14, for the Convenience of
the Government. He had served 3 years, 7 months, and 27 days on active
duty. He had 42 days time lost.
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. Based upon the presumption of regularity in the
conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we
must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in compliance
with appropriate directives. 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 available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board, Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Mr. William H. Anderson, and Mr.
Lawrence R. Leehy, considered this application on 11 Dec 01, in accordance
with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and the governing
statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149, w/atchs
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 applicant’s response to the advisory opinion 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. PEGGY E. GORDON Panel Chair Exhibits: 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, within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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.
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, within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions 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. Accordingly, applicant's request is 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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, within 30 days (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.
The Chief, Review Boards Office, SAF/MIBR, informed the applicant, by letter, dated 26 Jul 01, that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, Missouri, was unable to locate his personnel records. The Chief requested the applicant confer with his military personnel representatives for assistance in locating pertinent records and if he had other documents relating to his Air Force service other than the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), he...
The Chief, Review Boards Office, SAF/MIBR, informed the applicant, by letter, dated 26 Jul 01, that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, Missouri, was unable to locate his personnel records. The Chief requested the applicant confer with his military personnel representatives for assistance in locating pertinent records and if he had other documents relating to his Air Force service other than the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), he...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00358 INDEX NUMBER: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report or Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show that he flew two refueling missions from Ramey AFB Puerto Rico to South East Asia (Vietnam) between 1968 and 1970. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an...
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). 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.