Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02310
Original file (BC-2007-02310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

    IN THE MATTER OF:              DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02310
                 INDEX CODE:  110.02
    XXXXXXX                        COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His separation code of "JKN" which denotes  "Misconduct"  and  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B”  which  denotes  "Separated
with  a  General  or   under-other-than-honorable-conditions   (UOTHC)
discharge" be changed to allow him to enlist in the United States  Air
Force (USAF) or the USAF Reserves (USAFR).

2.  Block  15a  (Member  contributed  to  post-Vietnam  Era  Veterans'
Education Assistance Program) on  his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from "No" to "Yes".

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was in basic training, he contributed 1,200  dollars  to  the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).  He makes no contention  why  his  RE  code
should be changed.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 March 1999.

On 26 July 2001,  he  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending him for  discharge  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force  Military  Training  and
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, paragraph
5.49, Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The specific reasons for this action were:

On 21 June  2000,  he  received  a  Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)  for
reporting to duty out of uniform.

On 24 July 2000, he received a LOC for reporting to  work  30  minutes
late.

On 17 August 2000, he  received  an  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
reporting to work 30 minutes late.

On 30 August 2000, he  received  a  LOC  for  neglecting  to  pay  his
Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) bill on time.

On 15 September 2000, he received an LOR for not reporting to work  as
directed, neglecting his responsibilities, and making a false official
statement to an officer in the USAF.

On 2 November 2000, he received an LOR for being late for a  scheduled
class, causing him to miss his initial chemical warfare class a second
time.

On 9 November 2000, he received an  LOR  for  failing  to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty.

On 18 January 2000, he received an LOR for failing to report  to  work
on time.

On 8 Feburary 2001, he received an LOR for not  immediately  reporting
to work during a recall.

On 26 March 2001, he received an LOC  for  charging  into  an  office,
without any respect, while non-commissioned officers were engaged in a
conversation.

On 13 April 2001, he received a Record of Individual Counseling  (RIC)
for leaving his dump truck running unattended.  In  addition,  he  did
not sign off the AF Form 1806, Vehicle  Inspection  Card,  as  he  was
required to do.

On 23 April 2001, he received a speeding ticket for going 11 miles per
hour (MPH) over the speed limit in base housing.

On 29 May 2001, he received an LOR and an Unfavorable Information File
(UIF) was established for taking  college  courses  while  he  was  in
upgrade training even though he had been  directed  not  to  take  any
classes until he completed his Career Development Course (CDC).

On 22 June 2001, he was punished under Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go at the  time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty.

On 1 July 2001, he received an LOR for failing to obey a direct  order
to not log on to any computer in the shop while performing  his  extra
duty.

On 4 July 2001, he received an LOR for failing to go to his  appointed
place of duty.

After being advised of his rights, he submitted statements on his  own
behalf.

On 7 August 2001, the case was reviewed by the base legal services and
found to be legally sufficient to support the discharge.

On 9 August 2001, the discharge authority approved the separation  and
ordered a general service  characterization  and  no  opportunity  for
probation and rehabilitation.

On 14 August 2001, he received a general (under honorable  conditions)
discharge in the grade of airman.

He served 2 years, 4 months and 20 days on active duty.

On 6 August 2007, HQ AFPC/DPPAT provided the  applicant  a  letter  to
ensure he understood the purpose of the Block 15a entry in his records
and the consideration that must be made before his  DD  Form  214  was
changed.  DPPAT stated Block 15a  of  the  DD  Form  214  pertains  to
individuals  with  Veterans  Education   Assistance   Program   (VEAP)
benefits.  It states this option was only  available  for  individuals
who entered service between 1 January 1977 and  before  1  July  1985.
His date of entry was 24 March 1999 and his records reflect on 5 April
1999, he elected to participate in the MGIB because of this, block 15A
does not require correction.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states the applicant's  commander
notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  his  discharge  for  minor
disciplinary infractions.  The applicant acknowledged the  commander's
intent and submitted a  statement  on  his  behalf.   DPPAE  finds  no
evidence of error or injustice; nor did the applicant submit  evidence
of any.

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

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the   discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did  not  submit
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his
discharge processing.


The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded by providing a letter from  the  Nevada  State
Apprenticeship  Council,  a  Diploma  and  several   certificates   of
recognition/commendation.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  the
applicant’s separation code and  RE  code.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case,
however; we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices 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.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02310 in Executive Session on 27 November 2007, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
            Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 October 2006, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPAE Letter, dated 13 August 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPPRS Letter, dated 20 August 2007.
    Exhibit E.  SAF/MRBR Letter, dated 5 October 2007.
    Exhibit F   Applicant's Response, w/atchs.





                                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01351

    Original file (BC-2003-01351.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his contention of no longer being affected by “previous flaws”, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00227

    Original file (BC-2006-00227.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provided documents extracted from his military personnel records Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 20 May 2004 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and approved the applicant’s request that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his RE code be changed. On 12 July 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the counsel for review and response within 30...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392

    Original file (BC-2007-00392.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 January 2003, the applicant received an LOC for failure to obey an order or regulation. DPPAE states there is no evidence in the applicant’s record to support that the RE code she received is incorrect or that it created an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812

    Original file (BC-2002-03812.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note that in the 11 months and 2 days that the applicant was on active duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02370

    Original file (BC-2007-02370.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02370 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) and Separation Code of “JFF” (Secretarial Authority) be changed. On 10 August 1999,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02205

    Original file (BC-2004-02205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As for his separation date, he was not supposed to separate until after 23 Jul 04. The law provides for benefits for an individual who separates with less than a full term of service if the reason for discharge is Secretarial Authority, hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to service (EPTS), physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force (RIF). While his separation date may have been beyond his control, we are persuaded he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925

    Original file (BC-2004-01925.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00768

    Original file (BC-2003-00768.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE Code of “2B” accurately identifies the applicant’s involuntary separation with a general discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 2003 for review and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802602

    Original file (9802602.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2006-01253

    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.