Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03180
Original file (BC-2004-03180.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03180

            COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  changed  to
honorable and the narrative reason for discharge be changed to for the
convenience of the government.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by his commanding officer  that  his  discharge  would  be
upgraded after he was discharged from the service.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
11  December  1986.   On  17  November   1988,   the   applicant   was
involuntarily  discharged  under  the   provisions   of   AFR   39-10,
(Unsatisfactory Performance) with  service  characterized  as  general
(under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman  first  class.  He
served 1 year, and 11 months and  7  days  of  total  active  military
service.

The applicant was notified  on  6  October  1988  that  he  was  being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Regulation
(AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress in  USAF
On-The-Job-Training.  The commander recommended  applicant  receive  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge based  on  failing  his
Career Development Course Examination on two different occasions.  The
applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge  notification  and
consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own
behalf.  On 3 November 1988,  the  recommendation  was  found  legally
sufficient  for   a   general   discharge   and   no   probation   and
rehabilitation.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  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 discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided  no
facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

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 November 2004, for review and  comment.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  The applicant has
not established by  his  submission  that  his  commander  abused  his
discretionary authority, and since we find no abuse of that authority,
there is no compelling reason to overturn  the  commander’s  decision.
We agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or
an injustice.  Therefore, in absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no 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 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
03180 in Executive Session on 4 January 2005, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Nov 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.






      PATRICIA D. VESTAL
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00624

    Original file (BC-2003-00624.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was trying to find a way to get out of the service to spend time with his grandfather and mother after his grandmother died. The First Sergeant assured the applicant that he would be honorably discharged. The applicant was notified on 12 August 1994 that he was being recommended for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02358

    Original file (BC-2004-02358.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged with an entry-level separation with character of service listed as uncharacterized on 20 June 2003 in the grade of airman basic. On 17 June 2003, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force. In this respect, we agree with the Air Force that an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed 180 days of active service at the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02039

    Original file (BC-2004-02039.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states, 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102576

    Original file (0102576.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02576 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions discharge. At that time, the applicant was also invited to provide additional evidence pertaining to his activities since leaving the service (Exhibit F). We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01461

    Original file (BC-2005-01461.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states 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 discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his character of service. Therefore, based on the available...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00225

    Original file (BC-1998-00225.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states please note the following court cases that he believes affect his case. Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION The Dir of Personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800225

    Original file (9800225.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states please note the following court cases that he believes affect his case. Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION The Dir of Personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01832

    Original file (BC-2003-01832.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01832 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. She recommended he be discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01690

    Original file (BC-2003-01690.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 November 1987 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002324

    Original file (0002324.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Nothing in the records or that is provided by the applicant indicates an error was committed or injustice served in the type of discharge received. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and concurs with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and separation code should remain the same. ...