RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02331
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 JAN 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to his youth and inexperience, he was easily led to make bad decisions.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 June 1960 in the grade of
airman basic for a period of four years.
On 23 June 1964, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
initiated discharge action against the applicant. The specific reasons to
substantiate the discharge follows.
a. 5 October 1963 - Article 15 - Failure to Repair.
b. 2 December 1963 - Summary Court Martial - Failure to
Repair.
c. 15 January 1964 - Quality Control Roster, referral Airman
Performance Report (APR).
d. 18 March 1964 - Article 15 - Failure to Repair.
e. 5 May 1964 - Article 15 - Failure to Obey a Lawful Order.
f. He received another referral APR after his 90-day
observation period but was removed from the Quality Control Roster due to
insufficient retainability in the service to complete an additional 90-day
observation period.
In a Quality Control Roster letter, dated 2 June 1964, the commander
indicated he desired to continue the applicant on the Quality Control
Roster as no progress had been noted during the previous 90-day observation
period. The applicant indicated he did not desire to extend his enlistment
to complete an additional 90 days’ observation period on the Quality
Control Roster. He desired to be separated from the Air Force on his
normal separation date of 29 June 1964.
On 2 June 1964, the applicant’s name was removed from the Quality Control
Roster.
The discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 29 June 1964, in the grade of airman third
class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Expiration Term of Service). He served four years
of total active military service.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify with an
arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating 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
applicant did to submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting
a change to his character of service.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 12 August 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
On 24 August 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F). 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, 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 an error or injustice warranting the applicant’s general
(under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge. The Board believes responsible officials applied appropriate
standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that the
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of
discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in Executive
Session on 3 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02331 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 July 2005, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Negative FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 August 2005.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 August 2005.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 August 2005.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01925
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in Regular Air Force on 17 October 1963 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years. The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 21 April 1965 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (attrition, inaptitude or unsuitability) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01150
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01150 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02457
He was sentenced to be discharged from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. They indicated based upon the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00269
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00269 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 AUGUST 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to a honorable discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00579
He did his separation paperwork on 20 Jul 02, one month shy of the six months; therefore, he received a RE code of 4E, even though his military separation date with the United States Air Force was 5 Sep 02. He was assigned RE code “4E” which denotes “Grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months (55 months for 6-year enlistees), if a first-term airman; or, grade is airman first class or below and the airman is a second-term or career airman.” He was assigned...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00146
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provided facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge. We conclude, therefore, that...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provided facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge. We conclude, therefore, that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03420
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03420 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 12 MAY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00208 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nonselection for reenlistment and the Unfavorable Information(UIF)/Control Roster actions be rescinded; she be promoted, with all back pay; and she be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM. DPPAE indicated that a review of the applicant's military personnel records revealed she was nonselected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03162
On 7 March 2002, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for misconduct, specifically, commission of a serious offense. On 25 March 2002, a legal review of the discharge case file by the staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 21 October 2002, the applicant...