Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00023
Original file (BC-2007-00023.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00023
            INDEX CODE:  110.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  8 JUNE 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD 214 be amended to reflect that he served 90 days of active duty
service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

VA regulations state that a veteran must have at least  90  days  on  active
duty to qualify for most VA benefits.  Through no fault of his own,  he  was
discharged for convenience of the government with only  51  days  of  active
duty service.

In support of the application, the applicant submits an Air Force  Discharge
Review Board application (DD Form 293), a copy of his DD 214, and a copy  of
his DD 215.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 Apr 65, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age  of
20 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 7 Jun 65, the applicant’s squadron and school commanders  recommended  he
be discharged under the provisions of  AFR  39-14,  Para  3r,  for  Academic
Failure  and  Unsatisfactory  Performance.   On  8  Jun  65,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommendation and directed  that  the  applicant  be
issued an honorable discharge certificate.

On 11 Jun 65, the applicant was honorably released from active duty  service
for convenience of the government.  He had served 1 month  and  21  days  on
active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   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 discharge regulation.  The discharge was  within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any  evidence  or
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing.  Additionally, there are no provisions to  award  an  individual
credit for unearned active duty.

The complete DPPRS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16  Feb
07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  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  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for the conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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 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  evidence  not
considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  BC-2007-00023  in
Executive Session on 17 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 07.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00294

    Original file (BC-2007-00294.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Following his removal from training he was placed on “casual status” while waiting to be reclassified and retrained in a new Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting change to his SPD code The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01150

    Original file (BC-2006-01150.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00489

    Original file (BC-2007-00489.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant reenlisted before the announcement date. 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 its 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03391

    Original file (BC-2005-03391.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03391 INDEX CODE: 131.09 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 MAY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of E-4, Sergeant, effective at the time of discharge. Applicant states, he was told that he would be promoted to E-4, on his DD Form 214, but...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03754

    Original file (BC-2006-03754.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb 82. On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit E).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00047

    Original file (BC-2007-00047.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s health record, dated 7 June 2004, indicates she tested positive for sickle cell trait. On 10 June 2004, the applicant signed and dated a Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options, indicating she elected discharge versus remaining on active duty. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00218

    Original file (BC-2006-00218.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00218 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUL 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). The evidence of record indicates the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03906

    Original file (BC-2006-03906.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03906 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01253

    Original file (BC-2006-01253.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    3) 19 Jan 82, applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for violating Air Force Standards. 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. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03548

    Original file (BC-2005-03548.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPF reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, para 10.9.7, states member’s application must clearly establish that an error or injustice by the Air Force caused the applicant’s lost leave. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...