RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02227
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 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 they believe the discharge was consistent with
theprocedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives
in effecct at the time of his discharge. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant’s request. A complete copy of the evaluation is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 August 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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. 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 Staff
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 this application on 24
September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 20 Aug 91. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 20 Aug 91.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00693 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02312
The applicant was disrespectful to the 831st Air Division Commander on 19 October 1982, in that he did not render proper military courtesies when he was stopped for speeding as evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 17 November 1982. b. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01490
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01490 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air National Guard. The applicant’s request for a conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01490 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air National Guard. The applicant’s request for a conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 1 Mar 02 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01106
Since this condition is unsuiting for military service, the applicant underwent entry level separation. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that even though the applicant was on active duty after 180 days of continuous active service, the process of his discharge began before that point in time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that...
His one Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period closing 29 Sep 72 has an overall rating of 6. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 17 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel...
In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Mar 02.