RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02578
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He had just received an honorable discharge from the Army National Guard
when he joined the Air Force. The recruiter told him he would again have
to attend Basic Military Training and would attend supply school. When he
enlisted, he was only 19 ½ years of age and hotheaded and wouldn’t take
very much of anything. If he knew then what he knows now, he wouldn’t be
writing this letter.
He has completed a program of study in Plywood Hydraulic System
Troubleshooting. He has worked as an electrician for 14 years at Boise
Cascade Mills. He is a 30-year retired electrician.
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies
of diplomas, a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his honorable discharge
certificate and a certificate of training from the Department of the Army.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 2 September 1960 and
was discharged on 1 March 1961 for successfully completing six months of
active duty training. On 18 May 1961, applicant enlisted in the Regular
Air Force for a period of 4 years in the grade of E-2 and was enrolled in
basic military training (BMT).
Because of great difficulties in academics and his inability to get along
with his training instructors and fellow airmen, his squadron referred him
to the Mental Hygiene Division. On 21 June 1961, the Aerospace Medical
Center, Lackland AFB, TX, performed a mental health evaluation on the
applicant. The mental health evaluation diagnosed him as passive
aggressive reaction, chronic, severe, manifested by extreme passive
obstructionism, sarcasm, belligerence, total disregard for authoritative
figures and for the rights of others, and total inability to accept any
form of discipline.
On 28 June 1961, in accordance with AFR 39-16, paragraph 4b, Section A, and
paragraph 9b(4), Section C, the commander initiated discharge proceedings
against the applicant. The applicant was advised of his rights in this
matter. The applicant waived his right to submit statements in his behalf
and to military legal counsel. On 11 July 1961, the discharge authority
directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-16, paragraph 4b, Section A, and paragraph 9b(4),
Section C with a type of discharge as general. The applicant was
discharged on 14 July 1961. He had served 1 month and 27 days on active
duty in the Regular Air Force and a total of 7 months and 27 days of active
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. DPPRS states that based
upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that when he enlisted in the Air Force he didn’t have
to go to BMT and would be put in an on-the-job training status in supply.
The drill instructors didn’t like prior service personnel and the
commanders didn’t know what was going on half the time.
Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly
reviewing the documentation that has been submitted, the Board does not
believe he has suffered from an injustice. The applicant has provided no
evidence showing the information in his discharge case file was erroneous,
his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their
discretionary authority. Therefore, 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. In view of the above, favorable
consideration of the applicant’s request is not possible.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 5 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 September 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01294
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that if his recommendation was approved, the applicant's separation would be characterized as honorable; however, he did recommend probation and rehabilitation. He served 11 years, 8 months and 12 days of active duty service. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility code of "2C," indicating the member was involuntarily...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03389 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He indicates that he would be willing to make a personal appearance to the Board to discuss his side of the story. As of this date, no response has been received by...
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...
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. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02132
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02132 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation on her DD Form 214 be changed from Personality Disorder. The military physicians diagnosed her as having a Personality Disorder. However, a year after being discharged she was diagnosed with...
He gave a history of ingestion of a bottle of aspirin to avoid going to school, and a history of inpatient mental ward hospitalization and treatment with anti-psychotic mediations. The fact that his mother had an affair when his father was away on business with an individual that abused him right before his parents separated had a vast impact on his childhood. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
The reason for the request was that on 22 June 1987, the member waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board with the understanding that he would receive no less than a general discharge. Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 paragraph 5-46, for misconduct based on minor disciplinary infractions and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03926
On 16 January 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s requests his Reenlistment Eligibility code 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02625
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. 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 20 September 2002, for review and response. ...
The current AFI that regulates separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. Based on the evidence provided, DPPRS recommends changing block 28 on his DD 214 from "Personality Disorder" to "Secretarial Authority" with a Separation Program designator of "JFF" (Exhibit E). ...