RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-04564
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Block 24, Character of Service, on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Not Applicable” to general
(under honorable conditions) or honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His discharge was inequitable because it was based on two isolated
incidents whereby he was late to Technical School Training class. He
understands the severity of being late to class and paid a dear price by
his discharge from service. He had no other adverse actions during this
time.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a DD Form 293, Application
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the
United States.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 8 Aug 83, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 2 Feb 84,
his commander notified him that he was recommending his separation from the
Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Separation
Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government,
Minority, Dependency and Hardship, for unsatisfactory conduct.
His specific reasons were as follows:
a. On 2 Dec 83, the applicant received an Article 15 for leaving his
appointed place of duty, without authority, on 26 Nov 83.
b. On 9 Jan 84, he received an Article 15 for failing to report on
time on 3 Jan 84.
c. On 31 Jan 84, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing
to report at the prescribed time for mandatory formation on 29 Jan 84.
The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case file legally
sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with an entry-level
separation. The discharge authority approved the recommended discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.
He was discharged on 28 Feb 84. He served 6 months and 21 days on active
duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS notes it has been 26 years since
the applicant’s discharge; therefore, his petition for correction of his
records is untimely.
Although the applicant states he was not aware he received an
uncharacterized character of service, he signed and received a copy of his
completed DD Form 214 upon his discharge from the Air Force. DPSOS notes
at the time of the applicant’s discharge, AFR 35-6, Separations Documents,
required that airmen discharged in entry level status have their service
characterization entered as “Not Applicable” on the DD Form 214.
The complete DPSOS 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 30 Jul
10, 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 an 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 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-2009-04564 in
Executive Session on 7 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 26 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-00918
No evidence of error or injustice was found in the master personnel records or submitted by the applicant. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03192
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and the narrative reason for separation changed. DPSOS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00041
In a legal review of the discharge case file dated 21 Nov 85, the staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge without opportunity for probation and rehabilitation. Kendrick., Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00041: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901
In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01991
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01991 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 100.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 81150 rather than 81130, and his 1985 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. According to his Enlisted...
On 9 Jan 84, he was again denied the AFGCM. He was reduced to the grade of airman with a date of rank (DOR) of 12 Aug 83. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970
On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...