RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00532
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The following changes be made to his DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty:
1. Block 12h (Record of Service) (Effective Date of Pay
Grade) to reflect the date he entered the service.
2. Block 14 (Military Education) to reflect the completion
of his technical training in Security Forces.
3. Block 24 (Character of Service) to reflect honorable
rather than uncharacterized.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would like his DD Form 214 to reflect an honorable discharge
to be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
educational benefits.
He would like his technical training with Security Forces (Police
Academy) included on his DD Form 214, despite the fact he was one
week shy of completion.
His service entry date should reflect the date he started getting
paid, in the Fall 1998.
These corrections will give him better employment opportunities.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
DD Form 214.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 3 Mar 99, the applicant entered active duty in the Air
National Guard (ANG). On 23 Jul 99, he received an
uncharacterized entry level separation by reason of entry level
performance conduct. He served on active duty in the ANG for
4 months and 21 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS states that they concur with
the NGB Subject Matter Expert (SME). The SME states the
applicant has provided no supporting documentation to show an
error or injustice has occurred.
The SME states in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative
Separation of Airmen, an entry level separation is defined as
airmen that are in entry level status during the first 180 days
of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of
continuous active military service after a break of more than
92 days of active service. If a member is in entry level status
when the discharge is initiated the separation is described as an
entry level separation. The applicants DD Form 214 reflects he
entered active duty on 3 Mar 99 and was separated on 23 Jul 99.
An entry level separation does not qualify as an honorable or
general discharge as the characterization of service is, in
effect, uncharacterized. The applicant did not serve on active
duty long enough to determine the overall service
characterization.
The date reflected in Block 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade),
29 Dec 98, reflects the date he stated getting paid and
therefore, satisfies the applicants request to have his entry
service date corrected. This time is Inactive Service and
would not be included in entry level status. Entry level status
is for time on active military service.
It is not common practice to award and document training unless
that training was completed. If a Certificate of Training cannot
be provided reflecting completion of the course, the training
would not be included on a DD Form 214.
The complete A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 25 Mar 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 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-2011-00532 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 11, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 1 Mar 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02498
The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request to change the record to reflect that he was medically retired. The Medical Consultant found no nexus between the applicants ILOD injury of 1999 and his chronic lumbar condition, and noted a lack of evidence to demonstrate a chronic impediment to duty specifically due to...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04132
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on information from the subject matter expert (SME), the applicant was discharged in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, para 3.16., Entry Level Performance and Conduct, not a medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03978
We recommend the applicant pursue correction of his record through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Provided the requested correction is made, we would be willing to reconsider this case to determine the appropriate correction of his Air Force military record. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01507
On 31 July 2007, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged from the ANG under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Substandard (Unsatisfactory) Performance. On 31 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from the MI ANG because he failed his end-of-course examination for his CDC twice. ___________________________________________________________ _____ The following members of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00796
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Sep 07, the applicant enlisted in the CT ANG for a period of 6 years. Without any actual reasoning the SME cannot determine that he had not in fact requested the 6 year enlistment. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00209
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00209 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military. The Medical Consultant lauds the applicants desire to once again serve, and the support he has received from his parents, an employer, his youth pastor, and a...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02768
After being successful in reenlisting in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), he subsequently transferred back to his former unit with sufficient retainability for promotion; however, he was still not recommended for promotion. 2) His unit commander took him back on the basis that he would deploy and not be at the unit. However, since he was a member of the Air Force Reserve, the squadron commander of the unit he was assigned to (not the TDY commander) could have recommended him...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02745
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02745 INDEX CODE: 112.10 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation program designator (SPD) code of "JFX" (Personality Disorder) and his reentry code of "2C" (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04598
The mental health evaluation found the applicant as having an Adjustment Disorder (Axis I: No diagnosis). His diagnosis, by itself, does not automatically disqualify him from flight duties, although it cannot be determined if the Axis II diagnosis of personality trait affects him sufficiently that he cannot qualify to fly military aircraft. Further, the applicant did not have a medical condition that disqualified him from flight duties as an aviator, as noted by the BCMR Medical Advisor.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03581
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03581 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to medical continuation (MEDCON) on active duty from 13 Jun 29 Jul 11. On 28 Jun 11, his medical provider recommended he be medically continued on active duty until 2 Aug 11. ...