RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04084
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, be corrected as follows:
1. His character of service be changed from Uncharacterized to
Honorable.
2. His rank and pay grade reflect Airman First Class (A1C,
E-3), versus Airman Basic (AB, E-1).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His uncharacterized service is a public burden and the fact his
pay grade of A1C (E-3) is not listed on his DD 214 is an
injustice.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 24 Oct 07.
On 5 Nov 07, the applicants commander notified him that he was
recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent
entry. The reason for the action was the applicants disclosure
of his pre-service history of suicide attempts during his mental
health evaluation that were not documented on enlistment
documents.
On 5 Nov 07, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and waived his rights to consult with
legal counsel or submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 7 Nov 07, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on
8 Nov 07, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
furnished an entry-level separation. On 13 Nov 07, the
applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with
uncharacterized service and he was not credited with any active
service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to
correct his rank to reflect A1C, indicating there is no evidence
of an error or injustice. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, paragraph 2.1.2, individuals initially
enlisting for a period of six years are promoted A1C upon
completion of either technical training or 20 weeks of technical
training, whichever occurs first. However, the applicant never
completed Basic Military Training (BMT) or technical school, but
was administratively discharged after serving 20 days on active
duty.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to
change character of service, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. 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 applicant
did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred
in the processing of his discharge. Airmen are given entry-
level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.
The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair to
the member and the service to characterize a members limited
service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days
of active service.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 11 Jan 13 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 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 applicants 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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2012-04084 in Executive Session on 23 Apr 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 12 Oct 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 Dec 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03324
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03324 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect Airman First Class (A1C), instead of Airman Basic (AB). His rank at the time of his discharge was not affected by his discharge under DADT. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04482
Block 17 be changed to indicate he was not provided all appropriate dental services prior to separation. On 8 Nov 12, AFPC/DPSIT directed the applicants DD Form 214, Block 14, Military Education, be changed to reflect (IVK) Underwater Egress Training, Nov 2008. On 23 Jun 13, SAF/MRBR directed the applicants DD Form 214, Block 20, Member Requests Copy 6 be Sent to California Director of Veterans Affairs, be changed to reflect No. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02961
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After completing the Return to Duty Program (RTDP) and being accepted back into the Air Force, he is now being denied the opportunity to reenlist, which he believes is unjust. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Dec 01 in the grade of airman basic. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00566
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00566 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating that the member has no qualifying service for Montgomery GI...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04975
DPSOE states that it is not clear which record the applicant wants corrected as the MilPDS reflects the following grade history: Grade DOR Effective Date AB 13 Apr 04 13 Apr 04 A1C 28 May 04 26 Aug 04 SrA 28 Sep 06 28 Sep 06 A1C 3 Dec 07 3 Dec 07 SrA 1 Apr 08 1 Apr 08 AB 7 Nov 08 7 Nov 08 DPSOE states that no further corrections are required as MilPDS reflects the applicant held the grade of senior airman. The second part, in the amount of $2,235.66 is due to overpayment of military pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03925
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The RE Code of 2C is required based on the ELS...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01771 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Between the date of his reduction to the grade of Amn (27 Jan 04) and his last day on active duty (31 Dec 04), the applicant held no higher grade than Amn. Based on the applicants date of rank (DOR) to SSgt during cycle 94A5, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00211
His date of discharge be corrected to reflect 17 December 1956. The applicant has not submitted a timely application and it has been almost 58 years since the applicant separated from the service. The applicant did not provide any evidence or supporting documentation contrary to the effective date of separation currently listed on both his DD Form 214 and NA Form 13038.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03355
Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5. The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02298
On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. c. On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of...