Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01692
Original file (BC-2004-01692.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01692
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report  of  Transfer
or Discharge be corrected to reflect he served two years of service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served two years of military service.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a  copy  of  his  DD
Form 214, a letter  from  SAF/MRBC,  a  previous  DD  Form  149,  with
attachments.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 January 1969, the applicant enlisted into the Air Force Reserves
(AFRes).  The applicant was discharged from the AFRes on 2 March  1969
and enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 March 1969,  as  an
airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 3 April  1969,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  he  was  being
discharged under the provisions of Air Force Manual  (AFM)  39-10  for
Mental Hygiene Evaluation.  The  specific  reason  for  the  discharge
action was:

      The Mental Health Evaluation dated 10  March  1969,  stated  the
applicant was referred due to extreme anxiety.  The applicant
related a history of nervousness and inability to adjust and  quitting
school in the ninth grade.  He also revealed he had  been  fired  from
civilian jobs and was dismissed from Job  Corps.   The  Mental  Health
Evaluation also  stated  the  applicant  showed  a  gross  immaturity,
dependency and inadequacy and they felt he would not be able to adjust
to the demands of the Air Force.  They further  stated  there  was  no
evidence of a psychiatric disorder which would  warrant  action  under
the provisions  of  AFM  35-4.   They  recommended  the  applicant  be
administratively separated.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and understood why he was being discharged.  The  applicant  indicated
he did not want to submit statements or a rebuttal on his  own  behalf
and he did not desire to have his case  evaluated  by  a  field  grade
officer.

On 4 April 1969, the discharge authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 15 April 1969,  the  applicant  was  separated  with  an  honorable
discharge under the provisions of AFM  39-10  (separation  or  release
prior to expiration of terms of service for convenience of  government
– failure to meet minimum requirement for retention in the Air  Force.
The applicant served 1 month and 13 days of active duty service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 dated 15 April 1969 reflects Net service -
1 month and 13 days, Other service – 1 month and  9 days,  Total  –  2
months and 22 days, and Total active service as 1 month and 13 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.    They   state   based   on   the
documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharged regulation.  The discharge  was  within
the discretion of the discharge authority.

The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  showing  he   served
additional time in the military.  His DD Form 214 reflects the correct
amount of service.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
29 September 2006, for review and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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
and adopt its rationale  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.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears the processing of  the  discharge  and
the  characterization  of   the   discharge   were   appropriate   and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  The applicant’s  DD
Form 214 accurately reflects his total active  service.   Furthermore,
the applicant has not provided any documentation showing he served any
additional time  in  the  military.   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  is  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-
2004-01692  in  Executive  Session  on  29  November  2006  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC 2004-01692 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Aug 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02231

    Original file (BC-2006-02231.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    e. On 18 March 1968, the 14th Combat Support Group notified Chanute AFB that the applicant arrived at their station on 1 March 1968 and was present for duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records defers to the Board to determine if the requested relief should be granted. Nevertheless, after 38 years, and in view of the negative FBI report and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03244

    Original file (BC-2006-03244.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and the applicant was honorably discharged on 21 Jul 80. The complete 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 for review and comment within 30 days on 1 Dec 06. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02456

    Original file (BC-2006-02456.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Shortly after entering basic military training, the applicant was diagnosed with a medical condition (Chondromalacia Patellae) that existed prior to service, which had it been detected at that time should have disqualified him for enlistment. In this respect, the discharge the servicemember received indicates an uncharacterized entry-level separation for serving less than six months of service which would be appropriate considering that the applicant served 56 days of active military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03511

    Original file (BC-2004-03511.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical consultant recommends the applicant’s request be denied. At the time of her discharge, there were several potential reasons that her commander could have discharged her for, including misconduct, drug abuse, unsuitability, and the reason he chose. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03606

    Original file (BC-2006-03606.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was discharged on 10 May 84, in the grade of airman first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03662

    Original file (BC-2005-03662.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 April 1986, he reported late for duty and received an LOR. DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge process, and provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service. After careful consideration of the available evidence and in the absence of evidence by the applicant to the contrary, we believe that the actions taken to effect his discharge were proper and in compliance with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00269

    Original file (BC-2006-00269.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the applicant contends the accusations of homosexuality were never substantiated, he rendered a sworn statement to the OSI, admitting to homosexual relations with Air Force personnel. Furthermore, the regulation in effect at that time required that a member be issued an undesirable discharge. Exhibit C. FBI Report, dated 8 Jun 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00838

    Original file (BC-2005-00838.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: reduction in grade from airman first class to airman and ordered to forfeit $100.00 per month for two months, but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to airman was suspended until 1 August 1974, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00296

    Original file (BC-2005-00296.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00296 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JULY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 23 June 1981, the commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00505

    Original file (BC-2003-00505.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 19 Oct 81, the discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. Although the applicant has requested that his separation code be changed to medical reasons or in the best interest of the Air Force, we found no evidence that his physical fitness to perform his duties at the time of his separation was questionable. We note that the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that the evidence of record supports a change to the applicant’s separation document...