RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02698
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 FEBRUARY 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214 be changed to reflect the Scholastic Aptitute Test (SAT)
scores based on the Airmen Qualification Examination (AQE) scores, along
with a grade point average (GPA).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
SAT scores for the four sections, the raw scores are ok, but would like the
overall grade point percentage grade average for each section.
In support of his application, the applicant submits a personal letter, and
a copy of DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report of Transfer
or Discharge.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 May 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.
On 2 October 1972, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-12, Administrative Separation of Airmen
(unsuitability), with an honorable discharge. He served 1 year, 4 months
and 7 days of total active military service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial and states the AQE is designed to determine
the probability of success in a particular Air Force specialty. There is no
grade point average for the AQE examination. The DD Form 214 reflects the
composite scores based on a normative reference group for the four major
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) groupings at that period of Air Force
history: Mechanical, Administrative, General, and Electronic. The SAT
scores and a GPA cannot be correlated to the AQE scores reflected on the
applicant’s DD Form 214. The score information contained on the applicant’s
DD Form 214 directly corresponds to the AQE scores compared to a normative
reference group at that period of Air Force history.
AFPC/DPPAT 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 28 October 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
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 that failure to timely file.
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 the DD Form
214 should be changed. In this respect, the Board notes that the SAT scores
and a GPA cannot be correlated to the AQE scores reflected on the DD Form
214. Therefore, we agree with the opinions 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. In view of the above, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
02698 in Executive Session on 5 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 18 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03761
The applicant does not offer evidence in support of the claim as required by AFI 36-2603, Air Force for Correction of Military Records, and AFP 36-2607, Applicant's Guide to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The applicant did not participate in VEAP, therefore, does not qualify under the law to participate in VEAP or convert to the MGIB under the current statues. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00076
He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service or his reenlistment eligibility code. In view of the foregoing, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from his narrative reason for separation. JOHN B. HENNESSEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00076 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority...
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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00430
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he served in the Regular Air Force instead of the Air Force Reserves. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In regard...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03295
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03295 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 FEBRUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation, trial by court-martial, be changed. The narrative reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) indicates...
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01941
The evidence of record reflects the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn for failing to progress in upgrade training, which resulted in removal of his line number. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01941 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00774
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00774 INDEX CODE: 104.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Sep 14, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, rating of a “5” be re-evaluated so that he can attempt to earn a commission in the U.S. Marine Corps...