Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03323
Original file (BC-2011-03323.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03323 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable and his reentry (RE) code of 2B (approved 
involuntary separation with less than honorable discharge) be 
changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He never received any counseling or nonjudicial punishment to 
justify this characterization of service. He attempted to file 
this request in 1987; however, the County Services Officer (CSO) 
in California told him he had no case. He was discouraged and 
did not pursue an upgrade until he met his current CSO and they 
discussed it in detail. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Master Personnel Record. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 2 May 1974, the applicant entered in the Regular Air Force. 
He was discharged on 27 March 1987 for unsatisfactory 
performance. He received a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge and his RE code was listed as 2B. 

 

The applicant’s administrative discharge package was not located 
in his master personnel records. Attempts to obtain a copy of 
his discharge package have been unsuccessful. Therefore, the 
circumstances and facts surrounding his discharge are not 
available. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, states they we unable to identify 
an arrest record on the basis of the information furnished. 

 


On 24 April 2012, the applicant was offered an opportunity to 
provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving 
the service (Exhibit C). However, as of this date no response 
has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. Based 
upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of 
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we 
must assume that the applicant's discharge was proper and in 
compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore, based on the 
available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to 
favorably consider this application. In the interest of justice, 
we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis 
of clemency, however, there was no post-service information 
submitted on which to consider granting relief on that basis. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-03323 in Executive Session on 30 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03323 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 11, w/ atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03941

    Original file (BC-2011-03941.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As stated in the ACP guidelines, his eligibility date rendered him ineligible to complete an entire period of agreement under the policy as released. 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 was ineligible for the Aviator Continuation Pay Program during Fiscal Year...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00829

    Original file (BC-2012-00829.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 October 2008, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for Misconduct, a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. On 5 April 2011, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00136

    Original file (BC-2011-00136.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00136 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1) Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 3 May 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed she be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00479

    Original file (BC-2012-00479.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit F. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant's request for a change of RE code. If the Board upgrades the applicant’s character of service to honorable his RE code would automatically change to 2C, which denotes "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge." DPSOA will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 with an RE code of 2B, unless otherwise directed by the Board.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02542

    Original file (BC-2008-02542.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The commander informed the applicant of his rights, to include being represented by legal counsel and presenting his case to an administrative discharge board and, on 3 December 1987, he waived his right to present his case to an administrative discharge board, contingent on his receiving no less than a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02542 in Executive Session on 11 February 2009...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03323

    Original file (BC-2008-03323.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he retired, the Kosovo Campaign Medal had not been approved; therefore, he never had the opportunity to have the medal placed in his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02790

    Original file (BC-2011-02790.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02790 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. c. On 8 December 1982, the applicant failed to report to his place of duty at the prescribed time and was derelict in the performance of his duty. The applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01955

    Original file (BC-2012-01955.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He assumed his discharge was upgraded until he requested his records on 2 Nov 2011. 2 On or about 5 Sep 1986, he failed to perform quality On or about 16 Oct 1987, he failed to report to work. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03532

    Original file (BC-2011-03532.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete NGB/A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by providing the missing documents requested by NGB/A1PF. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03520

    Original file (BC-2012-03520.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    MRBP states that the AFDB considered the applicant (and another Air Force officer) for award of the AmnM on 7 Aug 2009 and disapproved the award, recommending downgrade to the AFCM for an act of courage. Also included in the file was the AFBCMR request for upgrade to the AmnM. The Board acknowledges the act of courage and personal sacrifices of the applicant on 6 Jan 2008; however, we believe his commander acted within his authority in determining the AFCM was the most appropriate...