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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received an honorable discharge from the military. There was no trial by
court martial. He was reduced in grade and discharged honorably. Recently,
he applied for a job on 10 November 2005. The reason that he did not get
the job was because of the narrative remarks on his DD Form 214. He was in
the military and served honorably for nine years. He is trying to better
himself in today’s job market.
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of airman basic
(E-1) on 19 July 1985. He was progressively promoted to the grade of
sergeant (E-4), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of
rank of 26 May 1979. There is no documentation in applicant’s master
personnel records relating to the reason for discharge or the discharge
process.
On November 1993, the applicant was notified that his promotion was being
withheld based on the fact he was under formal investigation by military
authorities which could result in action under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
On 4 May 1994, the applicant received an Article 15 for wrongfully
possessing the contents of test material for the Weighted Airman Promotion
System Examination. As punishment, the applicant received a reduction in
grade to airman first class.
On 27 August 1994, the applicant was separated under the provisions of AFR
39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (request for discharge in lieu
of trial by court-martial), with an honorable discharge. He had served 9
years, 1 month and 9 days of total active military service. The narrative
reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) indicates the
applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated the applicant did not submit any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting a change to his
narrative reason for separation.
AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23
November 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
there has been no response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been provided to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice that would warrant a change in the applicant’s
narrative reason for separation. We note that the separation action taken
against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction.
However, the Board is of the opinion his current narrative reason for
separation does not accurately reflect the reason for his discharge. The
narrative reason appears to infer his separation was due to an actual
“trial by court-martial” rather than an administrative discharge “in lieu
of trial by court-martial”. As such, it is our opinion that it would be an
injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse effects of the current
narrative reason for separation. Therefore in the interest of justice, we
recommend that his narrative reason for separation be changed to
"Secretarial Authority."
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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 27 August 1994, he was discharged
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 1-2, (Secretarial Authority)
with Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of JFF.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
03295 in Executive Session on 5 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Member
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Nov 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-03295
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 of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 27
August 1994, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph
1-2, (Secretarial Authority) with Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code
of JFF.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00717
On 1 October 1992, applicant voluntarily submitted an AF Form 31, Airman's Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation requesting to be separated from active duty effective 5 December 1992. in Business Management and Economics.” On 5 December 1992, the applicant was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (voluntary - miscellaneous reasons), with an RE code of 3A and an honorable discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02948
Please consider the time he has spent in the U.S. Army after he was discharged from the U.S. Air Force; it was eight years or more. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and 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. Applicant did not submit any evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01445
On 4 November 2004, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable; however, the AFDRB did not change the narrative reason nor the RE code. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, concludes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00475
The record contains one airman performance report with an overall rating of “9.” On 15 Apr 87, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct – drug abuse. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the correct narrative reason for discharge was “misconduct – drug abuse.” Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02478
Headquarters Twenty-Second Air Force/JA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved. On 18 February 1990, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. The AFDRB reviewed the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02296
On 30 May 2001, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s requests to change the narrative reason and authority for his separation and to change his RE code (Exhibit C). Applicant has not submitted evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge, nor provided facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for his separation or RE code. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01499 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation be changed on her DD Form 214. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01768
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01768 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant received four letters of counseling for failing to meet Air Force standards and his disregard for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00704
They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting a change to his character of service. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Mar 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01278
He began to look for means to support his addiction for which he was convicted. Civilian court conviction consisted of confinement from 21 Feb 56 – 17 Mar 56 (36 days). On 10 Sep 69, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded and for a waiver to permit reenlistment.