Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04225
Original file (BC-2012-04225.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04225 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, Block 6, Place of Entry (POE) onto Active Duty, should read 
San Antonio, Texas, rather than Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was born and raised in Austin, Texas. He joined the Air Force 
Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) between his junior and senior 
year of High School. He went to the Military Entrance Processing 
Station (MEPS) and entered the military from San Antonio, Texas. 

 

His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial. The applicant’s initial DD Form 
4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United 
States, dated 21 Jan 86 and confirmed on 3 Jun 86, reflects 
Oklahoma City MEPS as his place of entry. According to the 
governing instructions, a member’s initial DD Form 4 is the 
source document for Home of Record/POE. There was no evidence of 
an error or justification provided that warrants changing his 
POE. 

 

The complete DPSIPE 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 23 Oct 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 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. Nevertheless, the 
Board would like to point-out that should the applicant provide 
documentation substantiating his home of record as San Antonio, 
the Board would be willing to reconsider his request. However, 
in the absence of such evidence, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04225 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012-04225 
was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, APFC/DPSIPE, dated 4 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Oct 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 


 

 





Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00074

    Original file (BC 2014 00074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested that his HOR and POE be changed after his last reenlistment on 13 Jan 96 because at that time, he was a legal resident of San Antonio, TX. According to item 7(a) of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, his POE at time of entry reflects “Springfield, MA.” According to item 7(b), his HOR at time of entry reflects “Hartford, CT.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01593

    Original file (BC 2014 01593.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01593 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Place of Enlistment (POE) and Home of Record (HOR) be corrected to reflect Desoto, Texas 75115. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04350

    Original file (BC-2011-04350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her Home of Record (HOR) be changed from New Jersey to Texas. DPSIPE states the member's initial DD Form 4 reflects Wrightstown, New Jersey as the city/state in which she lived prior to entering the Air Force and has been consistently listed throughout her military records as her HOR. 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 (OPR) and adopt...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05542

    Original file (BC 2013 05542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 8 Aug 83 separation, Item 19, Mailing Address after Separation, be changed to San Antonio, TX. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his mailing address after separation. The applicant failed to provide supporting documentation that the Florida address was in error.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04894

    Original file (BC-2012-04894.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04894 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His home of record (HOR) be changed from Carthage, New York (NY) to San Angelo, Texas (TX). He has been a resident of TX since he joined the Air Force. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03485

    Original file (BC 2014 03485.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03485 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His home of record (HOR) be changed from Sun City, Arizona (AZ) to Lake Arrowhead, California (CA). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02600

    Original file (BC 2014 02600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02600 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Home of Record (HOR) be changed to reflect San Antonio, Texas (TX). The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), volume 1, Appendix A1, part 1, dated 1 Feb 14, states the HOR is the place recorded as the individual’s home when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01600

    Original file (BC-2012-01600.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01600 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Home of Record (HOR) be changed from XXXXXXX, Virginia to XXXXXXX, Texas. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04246

    Original file (BC 2014 04246.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04246 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Home or Record (HOR) be corrected to reflect San Antonio, Texas on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. According to the AF Form 768, Extended Active Duty Order, the applicant commissioned with the Regular Air Force on 14 Aug 04. The applicant’s military personnel record was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02975

    Original file (BC 2014 02975.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the applicant’s military personnel records failed to substantiate an error or injustice to warrant changing his HOR. The complete DPSIPE 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 23 Dec 14, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation...