Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201423
Original file (0201423.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01423
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 28 of his DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge  from
Active  Duty,”  be  changed  from   “unsatisfactory   performance”   to
“satisfactory.”

________________________________________________________________

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.  Accordingly, there is no need
to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial.    A
complete copy of the 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 24
May 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response  has
not been received.

________________________________________________________________

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 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  office  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.  The Board notes that the applicant appears to believe  that
the requested change to his DD Form 214 will entitle  him  to  benefits
under the Montgomery GI Bill.  This is not the case, however, since the
reason that the applicant does not qualify for the Montgomery  GI  Bill
is that he served less than the 36 months required to receive benefits.
 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 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 02-01423 in
Executive Session on 18 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 May 02.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201774

    Original file (0201774.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01774 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed a second opportunity to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). Although the applicant may have been under the impression the MGIB could not be used for graduate studies, she presented no evidence of miscounseling or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200129

    Original file (0200129.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00129 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantiive requirements of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200236

    Original file (0200236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00236 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200900

    Original file (0200900.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After careful consideration of applicant's requests and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01422

    Original file (BC-2002-01422.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that an entry level separation does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad. In order for a member discharged by entry level separation to receive an honorable characterization, there must be unusual circumstantces of personal conduce and performance of military duty that warrants consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201422

    Original file (0201422.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant states that an entry level separation does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad. In order for a member discharged by entry level separation to receive an honorable characterization, there must be unusual circumstantces of personal conduce and performance of military duty that warrants consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201738

    Original file (0201738.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 11 February 1988, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02030

    Original file (BC-2002-02030.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 March 2002, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being discharged for mental disorders, specifically a personality disorder. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE indicates that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201142

    Original file (0201142.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of his Army of the United States discharge certificate, his Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, his Separation Qualification Record, his military education record, his Honorable Discharge certificate, and documentation associated with his attempts to have his records corrected. On 10 Oct 48, he was discharged from the Air Force Reserves. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201191

    Original file (0201191.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her case was presented before an evaluation officer who recommended that she be discharged from the Air Force and provided a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 02.