RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03291
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty, be corrected to show that his grade at the time of
discharge was technical sergeant (E-6).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) awarded by the
Veterans Administration was based on the highest rank held by her husband,
his DD Form 214 should be corrected.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The decedent contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
14 May 70. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-
5) having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 77.
On 7 Apr 80, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place
of duty and being drunk on station. He was reduced to the grade of
sergeant. On 18 Aug 80, his NCO status was vacated. On 5 May 80, he was
notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged
from the Air Force in accordance with AFM 39-12. The specific reason for
this action was he was diagnosed as having a character and behavior
disorder. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and
directed that he be discharged without probation and rehabilitation. He
was discharged from the Air Force in the grade of senior airman on 23 Sep
80 and issued a general discharge. He served 10 years, 4 months, and 10
days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
upon reviewing the deceased member’s records it was determined that he
never served on active duty in a grade higher than staff sergeant. No
errors or injustices occurred in the separation processing; therefore, no
correction to the DD Form 214 is required.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jan
04 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. 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 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.
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 BC-2003-
03291 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Mr. James A. Wolfe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 04.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-04061
The letter appointing the investigating officer instructs the lieutenant to investigate and determine the cause of death as "misconduct," and as such the investigating officer's findings were heavily influenced before the investigation even started. We agree with the Office of the Judge Advocate General that it appears the applicant misconstrues the investigating officer's appointment letter as instructions to find the cause of death as misconduct. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01413
Based upon the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. 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 F. Letter, FBI Report, dated 26 Jul 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01429
As a result of his reduction to the grade of airman and having at least 12 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS), the applicant was advised on 22 Dec 03 that he was required to separate from the Air Force no later than 22 Jan 04. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant discusses the time line of events...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02469
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although he contends he provided medical information for the three years up to the time of his enlistment, there is no evidence to confirm this. The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and states they concur with the Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommend no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01300
An honorable discharge without P&R was recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded her reason for discharge should be changed to “hardship.” The applicant was ineligible for worldwide availability because she could not comply with the dependent care arrangements required by regulation. The applicant was treated no differently and given the same narrative reason for discharge as other active duty members who cannot...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01354
The applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00629
On 3 Jun 81, an Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. He chose not to appeal the commander's determination, which prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues he now raises over 22 years later. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00149
The applicant was discharged on 16 May 01 with an entry-level separation for personality disorder. The applicant underwent repeat psychological evaluation at a time when she was asymptomatic and no longer under the stress of the military training environment resulting in a conclusion that she does not have a personality disorder. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00254
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01940
On 31 Mar 04, the Discharge Processing facility (DPRAA), notified the applicant’s squadron commander that it had interviewed the applicant as a possible erroneous entry for law violations. On 2 Apr 04, the applicant was interviewed by his squadron commander as a possible erroneous entry for law violations and to determine if he would be recommended for a waiver. On 16 Apr 04, the squadron commander recommended to the group commander that the applicant be discharged for fraudulent entry...