Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02099
Original file (BC-2012-02099.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02099 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her character of service be changed to honorable. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  received  no  disciplinary  action  while  she  was  in  the  Air 
Force  and  was  a  good  airman.    She  was  discharged  from  the  Air 
Force  because  she  failed  training  and  the  Air  Force  would  not 
reclassify her.  She wanted to stay in the Air Force and finds 
it unfair that her GI Bill Benefits are being withheld. 
 
In support of her request the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty. 
 
Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 14 Sep 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  11  Mar  2011,  she  was  notified  by  her  commander  that  he  was 
recommending  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airman.  
The reasons for this action were she failed to make satisfactory 
progress  in  a  required  training  program.    Specifically,  she 
failed block IV, unit 5, test A, with a score of 78 percent and 
failed block V, unit 4, test A with a score of 83 percent.  The 
minimum  passing  score  was  85  percent.    As  a  result  of  these 
multiple  failures,  she  was  disenrolled  from  the  Basic  Airborne 
Operations Specialist Course on 22 Feb 2011. 
 
On  11  Mar  2011,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
Discharge  Notification  and  waived  her  rights  to  consult  with 
legal counsel and submit statements  in her own behalf. 
 
On  11  Mar  2011,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  discharge 
action legally sufficient. 
 

 

 

 

2

On 21 Mar 2011, the applicant received an entry-level separation 
with  uncharacterized  service  after  serving  6 months  and  8  days 
(188 days) of active service.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.    DPSOS  states  in  accordance  with 
AFI  36-3208,  airmen  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.    Entry-level  separations 
are  determined  when  the  commander  initiates  the  separation 
action.    Her  commander  initiated  separation  action  on  11  Mar 
2010,  which  gave  her  178  days  active  duty  at  the  time  her 
separation action was initiated. 
 
The  Department  of  Defense  (DoD)  determined  that  if  a  member 
served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be 
unfair  to  the  member  and  the  service  to  characterize  their 
limited service.  Therefore, the uncharacterized service on her 
DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force 
instructions. 
 
Based  on  the  documentation  on  file  in  her  master  personnel 
records, the discharge, to include the service characterization 
was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
of  an  error  or  injustice  in  the  processing  of  her  discharge 
warranting a change to her character of service, separation code 
or narrative reason for separation. 
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 25 Jun 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
D). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 

 

2

 

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 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 Docket Number BC-
2012-02099  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Dec  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
      
      
      
 The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-02099: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2012, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 Jun 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                   
                                   Panel Chair 
 
                                                                     

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00351

    Original file (BC-2012-00351.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The four test failures were evidence of her lack of motivation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While it is true she was counseled multiple times for her failures, she would like to make it clear that her academic deficiencies are not because of her lack of motivation. She failed this course, but it does not mean she would fail out of every course of study in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01180

    Original file (BC 2011 01180.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01180 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the applicant was discharged for not making satisfactory progress in a required training program. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04020

    Original file (BC-2011-04020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04436

    Original file (BC-2011-04436.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Sep 12 for review and comment within 15...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02825

    Original file (BC-2012-02825.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02825 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to honorable. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04219

    Original file (BC-2010-04219.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge; to include the character of service, separation authority, SPD code, RE code, and narrative reason for separation; was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04897

    Original file (BC-2011-04897.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04897 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Pregnancy or Childbirth” to “Medical Retirement.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because of her pregnancy; however her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04273

    Original file (BC-2011-04273.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04273 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04645

    Original file (BC-2010-04645.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04645 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While it is not readily apparent, it appears as though the applicant is requesting that his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and his Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry level separation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05130

    Original file (BC-2011-05130.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his type of discharge or character of service. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days. BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL...