RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02657
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His separation code of JKN (Misconduct) be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He signed his discharge paperwork with the understanding that it
was for Force Shaping. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects he received an
administrative discharge. He received a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge and believes that if it was for misconduct
he would not have received the administrative discharge. He did
not leave the military under bad terms and would like his record
to show that so he can reenlist at the earliest time possible.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
DD Form 214.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 22 May 01
and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of
19 Jun 04. He received a general (under honorable conditions) on
24 Nov 04 after serving 3 years, 6 months, and 3 days on active
duty; however, the DD Form 214 he was furnished reflects his
narrative reason for separation as administrative discharge and
his reentry (RE) code as 3C (First-term airman not yet
considered under the SRP) when it should have been annotated as a
2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-
conditions discharge). The applicants AF Form 100, Request and
Authorization for Separation, reflects the correct separation
code of JKN.
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicants military records, are contained in
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was
disapproved for Force Shaping, Phase II program, since he was
pending an administrative discharge. The applicant was approved
for separation for misconduct (minor infractions) with an
effective date of 24 Nov 04. DPSOS notes the applicants
DD [sic] Form 100 reflects the wrong separation date; however,
they will amend the form. DPSOS states the applicant did not
provide any evidence to show that an error or injustice occurred
in the processing of his discharge that would warrant a change of
his separation code.
The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicants
DD Form 214 requires to be updated IAW the governing regulation
to reflect the appropriate RE code of 2B to coincide with his
general (UHC) discharge.
The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 11 Feb 11 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 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
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 Docket
Number BC-2010-02657 in Executive Session on 15 Mar 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Jan 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 Jan 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02657
According to the DD Form 214, on 2 Aug 13, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct (Minor Infractions) with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman first class. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicants requests to change his RE code to 1# indicating the applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code 2B, but states he was unjustly discharged. THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00752
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an Article 15 and while he was on leave his commander received a notice to separate airmen with bad records under the Force Shaping program. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant was not serving suspended punishment under Article 15, UCMJ at the time of his release. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02843
On 9 Aug 82, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report for duty at the appointed place and time. d. On 15 Sep 82, he received an LOC for failing to adequately support his dependent. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00887
On 1 May 85 and 18 Nov 93, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered the applicant’s appeal to have her discharge upgraded; however, they concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion, and denied her requests. Additionally, the applicant’s discharge was supported by three (3) Letters of Reprimand, three (3) Letters of Counseling, and other documents...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02466
On 14 Dec 05, the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions. On 7 Dec 10, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicants request for upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. RE Code 2B, is required per AFI 36-2606,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02242
The applicant was honorably discharged effective 22 June 2005 with an RE code of 3A, a separation code of MND, and a narrative reason for separation of Miscellaneous/General Reasons. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. After reviewing his master personnel record along with the documentation he provided, the applicants RE code of 3A is correct, as he only completed 1 year, 1 month, and 12 days of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02173
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors that occurred in the discharge processing, and provided no facts warranting an upgrade to his discharge characterization. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02173 in Executive Session on 27 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02996
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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-01177
DPSOA states that it does not make sense to change the applicants DD Form 214 when it reflects the correct RE code. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01177
DPSOA states that it does not make sense to change the applicants DD Form 214 when it reflects the correct RE code. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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...