RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01855
INDEX CODE: 100.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Date of Separation (DOS) be changed to 11 July 1950 to reflect he
completed his 3-year enlistment.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his records should reflect his DOS as July 11, 1950, which
would include his accrued paid leave and therefore completion of his 3-
year enlistment. This change would make him eligible to submit a
claim for his Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) or future
claims.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered Regular Air Force on 11 July 1947 for a period
of three years. While serving in the grade of private first class, he
was discharged on 18 May 1950 under the provisions of AFR 39-14
(Convenience of the Government) with an honorable discharge. He
served 2 years, 10 months and 3 days of active service. His DD Form
214 reflects he was compensated for 58 days of accrued leave.
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by the 1973 fire
at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only limited
information is available for review. The relevant facts pertaining to
this application, extracted from the applicant's available 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 applicant's DD Form 214, he was
discharged prior to his Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) for the
convenience of the Government and was compensated for 58 days of
accrued leave. In a written statement provided by the applicant he
requested to be discharged before his ETS.
Service members are not given credit for time not served on active
duty. Service members are allowed to sell back up to 60 days of
accrued leave to the government and all leave must be completed prior
to the established DOS. Commanders are the approval authority for all
leave.
AFPC/DPPRS further states the applicant did not provide any new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
processing of his discharge. They believe the applicant's discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation; and the discharge was within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority. DPPRS recommends denying the
requested relief.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states in 1950 he
put in for his discharge thinking that his leave time accrued would be
included in his time served. It did not happen that way and he was
content until a few years ago. He is unable to work and was hoping
the discharge date can be changed to include his leave time (Exhibit
E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 of 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 Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. Based on the limited documentation in the
applicant's records, it appears that the discharge was within the
discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was
compensated for his accrued leave and he was separated prior to his
ETS at his own request. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01855 in Executive Session on 11 March 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letters, SAF/MRBR dated 18 Oct 02.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Oct 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01124
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-01124 INDEX CODE 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records reflect that she was discharged for the convenience of the government, not due to pregnancy, so she may be eligible for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). (See Exhibit F.) On 13 Aug 02, the...
_________________________________________________________________ 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. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Aug 02 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 B.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code 4H "Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)" the applicant received is correct (Exhibit D). However, at the time of separation he was serving a suspended punishment under the provisions of Article 15. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02213
The applicant, while serving in the grade of Airman First Class, was separated from the Air Force under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 27 May 1977. His SPD reveals separation under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Section F, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01624 INDEX CODE 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His other than honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge be upgraded. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances. We also find...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03514
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03514 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) and the narrative reason for discharge be changed. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02770
On 2 Jul 98, applicant requested a hardship discharge based on family difficulties. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. Additionally, we note the assigned RE code of 4A is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided applicant meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program, and depending on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00327
When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge. The AFDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should be upgraded based on the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the RE code “2B”. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...