RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05123
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Station Where Separated reflected in Block 8b of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 12 Aug 13, be changed to read Travis AFB, CA.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His DD Form 214 currently reflects JBSA Randolph AFB, TX in Block 8b, but he served his full term and separated from Travis AFB, CA.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 11 Aug 09.
On 10 Aug 13, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge and credited with four years of active service.
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/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, Rule 1 directs that Station Where Separated reflect the location of facility where separation documents were prepared. The applicants separation documents were prepared at JBSA Randolph AFB, TX. The DD Form 214 is designed by the Department of Defense for consistent application of use between the respective military branches of service. The applicants DD Form 214 is correct. The data in question is accurately reflected in accordance with governing directives.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 6 Jan 14 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.
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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2013-05123 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 14.
2
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04091
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for the AM w/5BOLC, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was awarded the AM four times (basic award...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02157
According to AFI 36-3205, Applying for the Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs, a members date of enlistment is the day after their date of separation from the Air Force. Once the board has completed its processing of this application, DPSOR will correct Item 9, Command to Which Transferred, from USAFR to ANG, State of Ohio, since the applicant enlisted in the ANG the next day. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 October 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04395
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Therefore, we believe the applicants records should be corrected as indicated below. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03455
The applicant has requested correction of several items on her DD Form 214. We note the applicant was advised in a letter, dated 13 October 2011, by AFPC/DPSOY that block 17 has been corrected to reflect that the applicant was provided a complete dental examination. This should satisfy the applicants request for correction of block 20a, Member Requests Copy 3 Be Sent to the Central Office of The Department of Veterans Affairs. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04402
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04402 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 32 days of advance leave she was charged while on leave in in Shreveport, LA be restored. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03749
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03749 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her duty title and location be corrected to reflect Chief, Commanders Action Group (CAG), 37th Training Wing, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA)-Lackland, TX. We note the Air Force office of primary responsibility recommends denial stating that they...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01913
He voluntarily separated from the Air Force and was promised a DOS of 8 Aug 09, based on transferring to The United States Public Health Services (USPHS) as of 9 Aug 09. His separation request reflects a requested DOS of 2 Aug 09, and under MILPDS DATA his DOS is reflected as 8 Aug 3888. On 2 Aug 09, the applicant separated from the Air Force. We cannot comment on the applicants eligibility for HAP as his separation was due to declining an assignment and not because he transferred...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03858
The applicants DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 10 Sep 11 honorable discharge reflects Gahanna, Ohio in item 7a, Place of Entry into Active Duty and Randolph AFB, TX in item 8b, Station Where Separated. The complete DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01551
His awarded Bronze Star Medal (BSM) be added to his record. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record DPSIDR was unable to locate a special order awarding the BSM. The complete DPSIDR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Sep 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05542
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 applicants request to change his mailing address after separation. The applicant failed to provide supporting documentation that the Florida address was in error.