RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03571
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded so that he may qualify for benefits under
the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Throughout his military career, he never had any work-related problems. He
always supported the mission, never jeopardized his security clearance, was
awarded an Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), and was certified as a
trainer. He contributed to the MGIB; however, he was unable to complete
his time in the Air Force by seven months.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and two
unsigned letters of recommendation.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment with the Air Force on 18 November
1999. On 17 April 2003, he received notification that he was being
recommended for discharge due to misconduct. Specifically, for conduct
prejudicial to good order and discipline. The commander indicated that his
bases for the action were the applicant’s civilian conviction for simple
assault; his assault on a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 19 April 2002,
for which he received an Article 15; his assault on an airman during a
basketball practice on 30 October 2001, for which he received a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR); and for falsely stating that his Military Identification
card was lost, for which he received an LOR. He received a general
discharge on 2 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).
He completed a total of 3 years, 5 months, and 14 days and was serving in
the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.
On 31 July 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered
and denied his request to upgrade his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation. Furthermore, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not
submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing.
The AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAT states that if the applicant’s discharge is upgraded to
honorable and the narrative reason for separation is changed to either
medical reasons, disability, secretarial authority, or miscellaneous
reasons, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) may favorably consider
his application for MGIB benefits.
The AFPC/DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days.
However, 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. 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 the applicant’s
discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force
Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and he was afforded all
the rights to which entitled. The applicant has provided no evidence to
indicate his separation was inappropriate. There being insufficient
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2003-03571
in Executive Session on 4 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary Johnson, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 26 Nov 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 5 Dec 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00906
On 5 Aug 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force with service characterized as honorable for failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAT evaluated the applicant’s request for benefits...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02741
She was honorably discharged on 22 Oct 02. The DVA awards MGIB benefits to service members who receive an honorable discharge and serve on active duty for three continuous years. An honorable reduction for one of the following reasons may result in a reduction of the required length of active duty: (1) convenience of the government; (2) disability; (3) hardship; (4) a medical condition existing before service (5) force reductions; or (6) physical or mental conditions which prevent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03190
The discharge authority approved the recommended discharge action and he received an undesirable discharge on 29 March 1965 for unfitness - sexual perversion. On 12 June 1968, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03639
The AFPC/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 19 December 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03699
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s RE code. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. It appears his discharge was in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02516
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 does not reflect the medal for the time he served in Saudi Arabia or that he contributed in the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program. In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; a copy of DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984, dated 11 Jan 96; a copy of Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Apr 98; DD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01615
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal letter. However, after reviewing the applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the narrative reason for his entry- level separation; i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, to be inappropriate. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct”...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01166
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment Agreement - United States Air Force, dated 27 August 2002, Election Letter and MGIB, dated 27 August 2002, and an Applicant’s Contract Information Form. However, a review of the supplement to his enlistment contract, AF Form 3008, which he apparently voluntarily signed and initialed on 27 August 2002, indicates that he was briefed on the program, understood that his first enlistment was his only...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | 2006-02698
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. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006-02698 in Executive Session on 20 December...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03418 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 May 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect that he completed the Air National Guard (ANG) Regional Equipment Operators...