RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00945
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: None
xxx-xx-xxxx HEARING DESIRED: Yes
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Block 29 of his DD Form 214, “Dates of Time Lost During This
Period,” be corrected to reflect “None.”
His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded.
___________________________________________________________________
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 at Exhibit C.
On 21 Sep 01, the Air Force administratively corrected the
applicant’s DD Form 214, deleting the lost time.
On 6 January 2000, the AFBCMR denied a similar appeal from the
applicant to upgrade his BCD. On 16 June 2000, 1 August 2000, and
7 March 2001 the AFBCMR denied requests for reconsideration
submitted by the applicant.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade
his discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade
his discharge. They recommend that his DD Form 214 be corrected in
Block 29 to read “None.”
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by indicating
that he could not tell from the letter sent to him exactly what
information was forwarded to the Board and how was he to know what
additional evidence to submit. He also disagrees with the
statement in the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPRS that he has not
filed a timely request. He further states that he was missing
several pages from the evaluation done by AFLSA.
The applicant concluded by indicating that the BCD he received was
excessive, cruel, and unusual and should be overturned.
The applicant was provided a response on 31 Oct 01 that outlined
the documents forwarded to the Board and also provided a complete
copy of the AFLSA evaluation.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. The Board notes that the applicant’s
DD Form 214 has been administratively corrected by the Air Force to
delete the indicated time lost in block 29. After reviewing the
available evidence of record, the Board did not find the applicant’s
Bad Conduct Discharge to be in error or unjust. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 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 issues involved. Therefore,
the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 01-00945 in
Executive Session on 19 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Aug 01
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Oct 01.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 01.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01490
His case was reviewed and the findings of guilty and the adjudged sentence were confirmed by the Air Force Court of Military Review on 21 Oct 88. Applicant was discharged on 11 May 89. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will...
However, the applicant has indicated that she is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation from the state of Florida unless her DD Form 214 indicates that she was discharged to attend school full time. However, we believe the recommended correction to her record will provide her fitting relief since it will provide her an opportunity to apply for unemployment compensation. Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that it is not clear from the applicant’s petition whether he considers the original Article 15 or the vacation or both to be an injustice. They recommend the Board deny that portion of the applicant’s request to have the original nonjudicial punishment action removed from his records. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02041
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02041 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dismissal from the Air Force be upgraded to honorable. c. On 17 Dec 85, the applicant submitted a resignation in lieu of court-martial (RILO) request. On 13 Aug 87, the Secretary of the Air Force...
DPPRS stated that, based upon the documentation in the file, applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. We thoroughly reviewed applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge and we find the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct (pattern of minor disciplinary infractions). We have noted the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01771
On 9 Jul 93, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. The adjudged sentence indicates the members considered his mitigating factors. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to reflect that when his combined active service time plus time on the Retired list equals 30 years, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01327
On 6 Mar 95, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that his BCD be upgraded to general. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). A complete copy of the AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Sep 04 for review and response.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02292
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02292 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). During his court-martial, the applicant offered mitigating circumstances in his defense including his excellent service record, statements...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01496
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his available military personnel records. The basis of the applicant's request for relief was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action, and did not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief. By letter, dated 19 Aug 03, the Board's staff requested that the applicant provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02636
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02636 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. While the applicant contends that he was immature at the time, he was almost 28 years old...