Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201612
Original file (0201612.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01612
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (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.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that based on the documentation in  the  applicant's
records, they believe that the 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
discharge authority.  DPPRS further states that the applicant has  not
submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that
may have occurred during his discharge processing.  The applicant  has
not provided any supporting documentation  to  warrant  upgrading  his
discharge.  DPPRS recommends denying the applicant's request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 June 2002, for review and response.  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 careful consideration  of
the circumstances of this  case  and  the  evidence  provided  by  the
applicant, we are not persuaded that the discharge he received was  in
error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  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-
01612 in Executive Session on July 30, 2002, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                   Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
                   Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                   Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.




                                  EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201724

    Original file (0201724.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable on 8 January 1997 (Exhibit B). DPPRS further states that the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that may have occurred during his discharge processing. The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to warrant upgrading his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201716

    Original file (0201716.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the applicant's military records (Exhibit B) 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 his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. Further, he has provided no evidence that he has rehabilitated himself or become a productive member of society since his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03363

    Original file (BC-2002-03363.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander also recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge. On 30 Jun 87, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Installation Commander that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated in his response to the Air Force evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201315

    Original file (0201315.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01315 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of reenlistment be changed from 11 December 2001 to 29 January 2002 to qualify for a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The applicant reenlisted on 11 December 2001 before the SRB review had been announced...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201366

    Original file (0201366.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with 2 Bronze Service Stars. They advise that the AFEM was only awarded for service in Vietnam during the period 1 Jul 58-3 Jul 65. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201492

    Original file (0201492.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP notes the applicant contends she was not time-in-grade (TIG) eligible to receive senior rater indorsement based on her date of rank (DOR). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that Section IX of the 24 Oct 01 EPR should reflect she was not TIG- eligible for a senior rater indorsement. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201141

    Original file (0201141.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded, indicating that nothing can change the facts or the past. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01540

    Original file (BC-2002-01540.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his application, applicant has provided a personal statement that is at Exhibit A. The applicant received an honorable discharge on 8 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Personality Disorder). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02695

    Original file (BC-2002-02695.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being late for duty. He received an RE code of 2B, “Separated with a General or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge.” __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the applicant not submitting any new evidence nor identifying any errors or injustices that occurred during his discharge. After careful review of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03097

    Original file (BC-2002-03097.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 29 Nov 85. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After reviewing the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, we believe the evidence of record supports his discharge for misconduct.