RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01105
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Supporting documents were not submitted. The applicant’s complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 4 August 1964, the applicant received notification that he was
being recommended for discharge for unfitness. He received a general
discharge in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 9 November 1964 under
the provisions of AFR 39-17. He had completed a total of 3 years, 3
months and 5 days of active duty 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/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS stated that
the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his
discharge. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 17
May 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. His contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. We therefore agree
with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or injustice. 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 this application in
Executive Session on 19 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01105.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical...
He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with a general discharge or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” Applicant's discharge case file is not in his military personnel records; therefore, the facts surrounding his separation from the Air Force cannot be verified. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the...
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...
On 5 Oct 61, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-18, Special Court-Martial Order # 102, and HQ HQLMTC/JA letter with a bad conduct discharge. At that time, the applicant was again invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit G). Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jul 02, w/atchs.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. There is no indication the applicant served in Indochina, and there are no awards or decorations associated with service in Indochina during the period he was on active duty. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Nov 01 Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 01 and 20 Dec 01.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 0202418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded so he can be buried in a national cemetery. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's sister...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01768
At the time she was released, she took her end of course exams twice and failed both times due to working 12 hour days and suffering a miscarriage. 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 basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00242 INDEX NUMBER: 110.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2C be changed to an eligible code so that he can reenlist and continue in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 12 August 1968. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that his General Court-Martial is news to him since he was not at the base at the time. Applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E. On 3 June 2002, a letter was forwarded to the applicant suggesting that he consider providing evidence pertaining to his...