RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05472
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His character of service be changed from uncharacterized to
honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied a top secret clearance because of his student loan
debt and was labeled an espionage risk. He was not a risk for
espionage. Despite having the highest average in his technical
school class, he was unjustly discharged from the Air Force.
The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his
untimely application because the characterization is unfair. He was
a good airman who was denied the opportunity to serve his country.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 August 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
In a letter dated 8 January 1992, the Chief, Security Police
recommended the cancellation of the applicants processing for a top
secret security clearance and denial of access to classified
material due to his financial irresponsibility.
On 16 January 1992, via AF Form 286a, Notification of Personnel
Reliability Program (PRP) Permanent Decertification Action, the
applicant was permanently decertified from PRP due to financial
irresponsibility.
On 22 January 1992, via ATC Form 125A, Record of Administrative
Training Action, the applicant was disenrolled from the Apprentice
Missile Maintenance Specialist (ICBM) course because of
Prerequisite Deficiency.
In a letter dated 14 February 1992, the applicants commander
notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air
Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation
of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance. The specific reasons for
this action were he failed to make payments to his creditors, he was
permanently decertified from the PRP and eliminated from the ICBM
course for perquisite deficiency.
In a letter dated 14 February 1992, the applicant acknowledged
receipt of the discharge notification, consulted with legal counsel
and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.
In a letter dated 20 February 1992, the discharge authority
concurred with the commanders recommendation and directed immediate
separation.
On 21 February 1992, the applicant received an entry-level
separation with uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for
separation is Entry level Performance. He served on active duty
for six months and one day.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant did not submit any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. Airmen are given entry-level separation/
uncharacterized service characterizations when separation is
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The
Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than
180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the
member and the service to characterize their limited service. In
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions, the applicant must
be separated with an entry level separation since he was only on
active duty for 178 days when the discharge action was initiated.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 February 2014, 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 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 the rationale
expressed 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 this application in
Executive Session on 21 October 2014, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-
05472 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR Advisory, dated 23 January 2014.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01484
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 26, Separation Code, JHF and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction be corrected to accurately reflect his characterization of service. Only after he completed these final evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00947
What was a greater mistake; however, was for the social worker, under the direction of the psychologist, to issue a recommendation of an adjustment disorder as he was given too short a timeframe for improvement. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03093
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicants military personnel records indicate she enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Jun 09. 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 Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02241
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02241 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code which would allow him to reenlist. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial to change the applicants narrative reason for separation and...
A current mental health evaluation indicates no mental illness and concludes that there is no substantial reason for security clearance revocation. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: - The Medical Consultant, BCMR, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, states that throughout this extensive record back to 1985, at least, can be found entries relating to mental health clinic (MHC) visits for a myriad of problems. 4 Evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03113
On 12 May 2014, the discharge authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged. DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge process. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01938
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01938 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following be changed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKN; Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B; and General under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05509
It also disqualified him from retention in the Air Force. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 August 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02850
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02850 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _______________________________________________ ____________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation, Reentry (RE) code, and separation program designator (SPD) code be changed so that he can be eligible to re-enlist. While the applicants narrative reason for separation and SPD code should be corrected, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05374
The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge. 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 failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. We note the comments of the...