RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00766
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the
discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. He provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
April 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no
evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note that the
applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air
Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was
afforded all the rights to which entitled. The applicant has provided no
evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate. There being
insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
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 02-00766 in
Executive Session on 16 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
Ms. Diana Arnold, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Mar 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.
JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation in the file, the discharge...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00158 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states although there is a lack of documenation in the file to discuss his discharge, they...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00131 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. Exhibit B.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00572 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00658 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, dated 21 October 1973, be amended in Item 30, Remarks, to reflect Vietnam - Yes. ...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in the official document provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit A) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (Exhibit C). The Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed the case on 15 December 1975 (appeared with counsel) and 10 July 1979, and determined no change in the discharge was warranted. ...
However, her uncharacterized discharge should not be changed as it reflects her separation before completing a period of service (i.e., 180-days of continuous active service) that would allow an honorable characterization. In addition, AFPC/DPPRS recommends changing the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason for separation to “JFF - Secretarial Authority.” AFPC/DPPRS states that the applicant’s discharge was in error and she should have been discharged under AFI 36-3208, paragraph...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02878 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow her to continue her military service until she is ready to retire. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the RE...
He served 6 months and 9 days total active duty service with 11 days lost time. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.