RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00089
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JULY 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation be changed from “Miscellaneous/General
Reasons” to "Force Shaping" Phase II.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was released from active duty under Air Force "Force Shaping" Phase II.
The miscellaneous/general reasons are not acceptable under the unemployment
insurance program.
In support of the application, the applicant submits an email on Air Force
Shaping.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 November 2001 for a
period of 4 years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 19 September 2003.
On 16 June 2004, the applicant voluntarily submitted an application (AF
Form 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change
in Service Obligation) requesting to separate effective 15 December 2004.
The application for separation was submitted under the provisions of the
Air Force Shaping Program, Phase II and AFI 36-3208, para 3.15,
miscellaneous reasons.
On 17 June 2004, the applicant signed a Statement of Understanding for
Member Applying for Retirement/Separation Under the Force Shaping Program
acknowledging the following: "I understand that separating for
miscellaneous reasons prior to completion of my first full term of
enlistment will render me ineligible for unemployment compensation."
On 15 December 2004, he was separated under the provisions of the Air Force
Shaping Program, Phase II, AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(miscellaneous/general reasons) from the Air Force with an honorable
discharge. He served 3 years and 27 days of total active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. The discharge was within the sound 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. He provided
no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation.
AFPC/DPPRS complete 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 18 February 2005 for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response from the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that
his reason for separation should be changed. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. In this respect, the Board notes that the applicant
signed a statement of understanding acknowledging his separation would
render him ineligible for unemployment compensation. We therefore agree
with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed
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. Therefore, 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 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-2005-00089
in Executive Session on 6 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L Scott, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Feb 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 05.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03913
He recently separated and has been informed that he is still entitled to portion of the bonus for the time that he served. On 2 December 2003, the applicant signed and initialed Air Form Form 3008 (Supplement to Enlistment Agreement - United States Air Force) acknowledging he understood the terms and conditions of his enlistment agreement which did not include an initial enlistment bonus. In this respect, the Board notes at the time the applicant signed and initialed his enlistment...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02405
The applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors or injustices and the narrative reason for separation is correct. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 28 November 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Ms. Cathlynn B. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Aug 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02495
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02495 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 FEB 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from “Miscellaneous/General Reasons” to “Reduction in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01866
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01866 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code of "MND" and narrative reason for separating be changed so he can receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. The specific authority through which he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03778
In accordance with the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program, the applicant was honorably discharged on 27 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that since the applicant was discharged under the DOS Rollback Program and was serving on the Control Roster, his separation code of JBK...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01763
Separations from the Air Force based on those reasons would be detailed on the DD Form 214 as reasons for separation, and for ex-service-members who did not complete their first full term of service, a “Miscellaneous” separation generally would not serve as an exception for qualifying for UCX. Had she realized the importance of the narrative reason for discharge, she would have filed for early separation with her main reason, that being education. In order to provide the relief she seeks,...
On 24 Mar 98, the applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force to be effective 17 Apr 98 by submitting an AF Form 31 (Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation) to attend Wrightco Technologies Training Institute with a class start date of 27 Apr 98. His discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and the records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. After a thorough...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01691
Available documentation in the applicant’s records indicated that on 22 Jul 04, he requested to be separated from active duty on 1 Jan 05 according to AFI 36-3208, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.14. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 24 Jun 05 for review and response. As of this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00455
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Board should review her DD Form 214 to either accept or decline the change in her RE code. On 22 October 2004, the applicant received notification from her commander that she was being recommended for discharge. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2005-00455 in Executive Session on 6 April 2005,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02861
The Separation Code he received is, in fact, the code authorized for the type of early separation he requested. _________________________________________________________________ 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...