RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05361
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His entry level separation be changed to general (under
honorable conditions).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A change in the type of separation would help him sustain a
full-time job. During the time he was in technical school, his
father left his mother causing him to have an emotional
breakdown. He had three younger sisters at home and he was
concerned for their safety because his mother was very abusive.
In support of the applicants appeal, he provides a copy of a
domestic violence order of protection, letters from the Law
Office of Stiehl & Stiehl, and a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 January
1986.
The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-10. The specific reason was on 17 April
1986 the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in a
required training program with a score of 66 percent. The
instructor felt the applicant lacked confidence in himself and
his abilities to be a jet mechanic. On 24 April 1986, the
applicant failed the block III retest with a score of 62
percent. Due to his excessive failures, it was evident that he
was unable to retain the technical information necessary to
complete the course. He was academically eliminated on 1 May
1986.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged
receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel the
applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf.
The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and
directed discharge. The applicant was discharged on 14 May
1986 with an entry level separation. He served 4 months and
13 days on active duty.
On 19 August 2013, a request for information pertaining to his
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicant
states he is married with five children. He has spent the
majority of his career in the sales industry and is currently
employed with the United States Postal Service. He regrets the
decision he made 25 years ago while in the service. During that
time he was not focused on his job due to turmoil at home. He
did not realize how his decision would affect the rest of his
life.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
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 error or injustice. The evidence
of record indicates the applicant was given an entry level
separation for entry level performance and conduct based on his
failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training
program. Because he was within his first 180 days of active
service, he was given an entry level separation with
uncharacterized service. We find no evidence which would lead
us to believe that his entry level separation with
uncharacterized service was improper or contrary to the
governing instruction under which it was affected. In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. Accordingly, we find no compelling 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 an 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-2012-05361 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 November 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 August 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 August 2013, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02794
Because he was within his first 180 days of active service, he was given an entry level separation with uncharacterized service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued as a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04729
Service RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04729 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code "2C" (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without service characterization of service) be changed to allow him to reenter military service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial noting the applicant has not provided any evidence...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01591
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01969
In response, the applicant provided a statement indicating that although he is currently incarcerated; he accomplished many honorable and admirable things in his life following his discharge from the Air Force. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00351
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02629
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02629 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a 1 RE code series that would allow him to reenlist. However, HAF/A1P is postured to reevaluate those Airmen who were affected by entry level separation for failing academically between fiscal years...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01204
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01204 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, change from “Entry Level Performance and Conduct” to read “Failure to Make Satisfactory Progress in a Required Training...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00455
Toward the end of basic training, he received orders. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 9 June 1994, after serving 3 months and 29 days active service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 June 1994, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05473
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. We took notice of the applicants 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion...