RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03470 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty be corrected to reflect the following: 

 

 a. Block 12b, Separation Date This Period to reflect a date of 
separation (DOS) of “24 Aug 82” rather than “12 Aug 82.” 


 

 b. Block 14, Military Education to reflect “Basic Parachutist 
Course.” 

 

 c. Block 17, Days Accrued Leave Paid to reflect “zero” rather than 
“11.5.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His DD Form 214 does not accurately reflect he was on 
terminal leave for 11.5 days; therefore, his DOS should be 
24 Aug 82. 

 

2. He cannot explain why the basic parachutist course is not 
listed on his DD Form 214. 

 

3. He will be denied certain veteran benefits because of these 
errors. These benefits are important to him and his family. 

 

The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his 
request. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served on active duty from 10 Jun 79 to 12 Aug 82. 

 

By letter, The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 
notified the applicant that he was paid all pay and allowances 
as well as a lump sum leave in the amount of 11.5 days. Also, 
there was no report of terminal leave posted through 24 Aug 85. 

 


 

On 3 Jun 82, in accordance with (IAW) the provisions of AFR 36-
12, Administrative Separation of Commissioned Officers, the 
applicant requested release from extended active duty, effective 
2 Aug 82. The specific reasons for the request were: 

 

a) Incompatibility with military environment. 

 

b) Lack of effective use of talents and expertise. 

 

c) Desire to pursue a career in the Criminal Justice 
profession. 

 

On 16 Jun 82, the Headquarters 552d Airborne Warning and Control 
Wing Commander recommended the applicant’s application for 
release from extended active duty be approved. 

 

On 27 Jul 82, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the 
applicant’s request for release from extended active duty IAW 
AFR 36-12, to be effective 2 Aug 82. 

 

On 28 Jul 82, AFMPC/MPCAK01 notified the applicant’s unit that 
his application for separation dated 3 Jun 82 and submitted IAW 
AFR 36-12, has been approved to be effective as soon as possible 
(ASAP). 

 

According to his DD Form 214, he was separated on 12 Aug 82, 
after serving three years, two months and three days on active 
duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his DOS to 
29 Aug 82. DPSOS states applicant’s who are given a separation 
date of ASAP are given at least 10 days to out-process their 
unit. Since the unit was notified on 2 Aug 82, a separation 
date of 12 Aug 82 is a correct separation date. 

 

The applicant’s military record contained insufficient evidence 
to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding his 
discharge. Absent the documentation, there is a presumption of 
regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process and 
the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge. 

 

A thorough review of the applicant’s personnel records reveals 
that his DD Form 214 reflects a correct separation date of 12 
Aug 82. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 


AFPC/DPSIM defers to the Board for a final decision regarding 
the applicant’s request to change block 17 of his DD Form 214 to 
reflect zero. The applicant states the 11.5 days of leave 
listed in block 17 of his DD Form 214 was never sold back. 

 

The applicant did not provide an AF Form 988, Leave 
Request/Authorization to substantiate his claim of using 
11.5 days as terminal leave. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of his request to add the Basic 
Parachutist Course. The applicant served as an active duty Air 
Force Executive Support Officer as well as an Aircraft 
Maintenance Specialist. 

 

The applicant’s record does not contain any documentation 
indicating he was placed on jump status or completed the 
Airborne Training course. IAW Army Regulation 672-5-1, Military 
Awards, the Parachutist Badge is awarded for successful 
completion of airborne training. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 23 Mar 12 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 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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-03470 in Executive Session on 1 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS, Letter, dated 15 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSIM, Letter, dated 27 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSIMC, Letter, dated 19 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit F. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 23 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair