RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00547
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to
reflect that he was retired from the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He served 21 years and 3 months and he feels that he should have been
retired instead of administratively discharged. Applicant’s complete
submission 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 letter prepared by the
appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPRS
states that he did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in his discharge processing. He provided no facts
warranting an upgrade of his discharge. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPRRP
states that the applicant, a prior service master sergeant, was discharged
on 2 Nov 87 with a UOTHC discharge after serving 20 years, 1 month, and 27
days on active duty. His commander recommended his discharge for willful
misconduct, the nature of which is abhorrent to society and the service.
Because he exceeded 20 years of service, he was entitled to, and requested
retirement under the provisions of AFR 35-7, table 2.2, rule 11. His
request was presented as a dual action case to the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force denied his request for retirement and SAF/PC directed his
administrative discharge. No injustices or irregularities occurred in the
dual action retirement/discharge processing. All facts pertaining to his
separation case and retirement application were considered by the Personnel
Council before the decision was made to execute the discharge. He has not
presented any additional facts other than what was available at his
original consideration. The DPPRRS evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12
Apr 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 02-00547 in
Executive Session on 13 Jun 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 8 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 02.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00130
Section 8914, Title 10 United States Code, specifically states, “Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force, an enlisted member of the Air Force who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service computed under section 8925 of this title may, upon his request, be retired.” At the time of his departure in September 2002, the applicant was not issued a DD Form 214 or a retirement order. There is no indication in the applicant’s record that he requested...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of the applicant’s discharge from active duty. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant has not provided any new evidence of error or injustice. The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and, absent...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01497
On 17 Jul 00, the AFBCMR considered and granted the applicant's request to be advanced to the grade of captain (O-3E) on the Retired List. DPPRRP stated that Section 8964, Title 10, USC, allows the advancement of warrant officers of the Air Force (when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years) on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. The applicant was advanced to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00600
After consulting with military counsel, on 14 Jan 00, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by court-martial. Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. While it is regrettable that his Air Force career, given the length and character of his service, came to such an inglorious end, we do not find sufficient evidence that the actions of his chain of command to approve his discharge in lieu of court-martial were in...
The applicant was discharged on 14 Apr 70. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00805 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01083
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He honored his commitment to the Air Force by serving for 23 years and asks that the Air Force (AF) honor it’s commitment to his service by entitling him and his family to an active duty retirement. He was honorably discharged effective 23 October 1999 for completion of required active service after serving 24 years and 8 days. Counsel was notified by the Wing JA that the applicant and his military...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant did not provide any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. They recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
At the time of his retirement, he had completed a total of 20 years and 29 days of active service. The remaining 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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. However, we agree with the opinion and...