Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202852
Original file (0202852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02852
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be   upgraded   to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that his family situation was not taken into  consideration.   His
grandmother and father were both ill at the time of his  infractions  which
he believes was due in part of him not being able  to  concentrate  on  his
duties.  He has been a model citizen since leaving the Air Force.   He  has
been in law enforcement, volunteer work and has never had a police  record.


Applicant provides no supporting documentation.  The applicant’s submission
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his discharge are  contained  in
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  DPPRS
further states that the applicant has not  provided  any  new  evidence  or
identified  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant
on 17 January 2003, for review and response.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of  record,  we  find  no  impropriety  in  the  characterization   of   the
applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible  officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting  the  separation,  and  we  do  not  find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that  the
member was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of  his
discharge.  The only other basis upon which to upgrade his  discharge  would
be based  on  clemency.   However,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide
documentation pertaining to his post service activities.  Should he  provide
documentary evidence pertaining to his post service activities we  would  be
willing to  reconsider  his  appeal.   In  the  absence  of  such  evidence,
favorable action is not recommended.   Therefore,  based  on  the  available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  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 this application in Executive
Session on 26 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-02852:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0203134

    Original file (0203134.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge. Likewise, since we have determined favorable consideration of the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade is not appropriate at this time, his request for his RE Code to be changed is not possible. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 March...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103653

    Original file (0103653.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02949

    Original file (BC-2002-02949.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    We see no evidence of an error in this case and after a thorough review of the evidence of record, we do not believe he has been the victim on an injustice. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0002246

    Original file (0002246.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02662

    Original file (BC-2002-02662.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant was informed that there was no indication in his record that he was awarded the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02903

    Original file (BC-2002-02903.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received an RE code of 2C, which defined means “Involuntary separation with honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant found that no change to applicant’s record was warranted. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE verified that the RE code of 2C was correct. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103

    Original file (BC-2002-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103

    Original file (BC-2002-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201736

    Original file (0201736.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01736 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844

    Original file (BC-2002-02844.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment 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 reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant...