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
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.
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
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...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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.
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
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
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
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.