Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00918
Original file (BC-2008-00918.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00918
      INDEX CODE:  110.00
      COUNSEL:  NO

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily Separated  under
AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge…) and Narrative Reason for  Separation
(unsatisfactory performance) be corrected to reflect more favorable codes.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not counseled on or  given  a  chance  to  overcome  his  reason  for
discharge.  His character of service was "honorable" which means he met  the
standards of duty and conduct.  His  disciplinary  infractions  were  minor.
He was a good airman; however,  no  rehabilitation  or  cross-training  were
offered.  He never  received  notification  of  the  proposed  discharge  or
offered legal  military  counsel  [sic].   He  was  overseas  and  wanted  a
stateside assignment.

He has matured and would like  to  enlist  in  military  service  or  obtain
employment within the Department of Defense (DoD).

Applicant submits his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from
Active Duty.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 Apr 83.  After  completion
of Basic Military Training and Technical School, he was assigned  duties  as
a Law Enforcement Specialist.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade
of airman first class effective and with a date of rank of  9  Jun  83.   He
had one Airman Performance Report (APR) with an overall rating of  five  out
of a possible nine.

On 12 Jun 84, his commander  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  his
discharge  from  service  for  unsatisfactory  performance.   His   specific
reasons were as follows:

      1.  On  12  Dec  83,  he  requested  separation   from   service   for
miscellaneous reasons.


      2.  On 17 Jan 84, he was evaluated  by  the  Chief  of  Mental  Health
Services who recommended he be administratively separated from  the  service
due to problems considered unresolvable within a military environment.


      3.  On 31 May 84, he received an APR with an overall  rating  of  five
out of a possible nine.

Applicant consulted military  counsel  and  submitted  a  statement  on  his
behalf.  A review of the case by the Acting Staff Judge Advocate  found  the
discharge legally sufficient.  Applicant was discharged on 17  Jul  84.   He
had served 1 year, 2 months and 23 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  No evidence  of  error  or  injustice  was
found in the  master  personnel  records  or  submitted  by  the  applicant.
Applicant requested separation as he was not willing or motivated to  remain
on active duty.  The RE code of 2C was directed by his commander.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  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 and was within  the
discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   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
separation code and narrative reason for discharge.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  9
May 08 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

________________________________________________________________




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 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.

________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 29 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2008-00918:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 08.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Mar 08.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DOSOS, dated 29 Apr 08.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08.




                                   JOSEPH D. YOUNT
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00418

    Original file (BC-2009-00418.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00418 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) and separation (SPD) codes be changed to waiverable codes that allows her to enlist in the military. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02717

    Original file (BC-2007-02717.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his service characterization to honorable, but it was not reflected on his RE code, which he needs changed to enter the Air National Guard (ANG). The applicant has not provided any facts to warrant a change to his discharge or RE code. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01562

    Original file (BC-2008-01562.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Jan 91, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance. On 1 Feb 91, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01916

    Original file (BC-2008-01916.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOA states a review of the applicant's records reveals his commander recommended his discharge for erroneous enlistment. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his narrative reason for separation. ______________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00516

    Original file (BC-2009-00516.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00516 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code 2C-Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without service characterization be changed to allow him to enlist in the National Guard. The HQ AFPC/DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02996

    Original file (BC-2009-02996.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-02996 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 3 Dec 86, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibits F and G).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01016

    Original file (BC-2009-01016.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01016 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 4D (Grade is Senior Airman or Sergeant, completed at least nine years Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to Staff Sergeant) be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2009 01016

    Original file (BC 2009 01016.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01016 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 4D (Grade is Senior Airman or Sergeant, completed at least nine years Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to Staff Sergeant) be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00983

    Original file (BC-2008-00983.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She believes the separation code and narrative reason are unjustified because she only spent one year and 10 months in the Air Force. 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 and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Therefore, we agree with the opinions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02498

    Original file (BC-2007-02498.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 May 00, applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE code be changed to allow his return to military service. The Board found that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge or an upgrade of his RE code. The Board further concluded that no legal or equitable basis exists for an upgrade of...