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.
____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She wishes to have her discharge upgraded to honorable so that
she can use her education benefits to further her education.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________ ______________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicant's military personnel records, she
initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Aug 07.
On 1 Nov 07, the applicant was notified by her commander of his
intent to recommend her discharge for Erroneous Enlistment -
failure to meet Air Force physical standards. The reason for
the action was that, according to a 30 Oct 07 medical narrative
summary, the applicant was ineligible to meet the minimum
medical standards to enlist due to her diagnosis of Patella
Femoral Syndrome. If the relevant facts of the medical
condition had been made known beforehand she would not have been
permitted to enlist.
On 7 Nov 07, the applicant was furnished an entry-level
separation with uncharacterized service for failed medical/
physical procurement standards. She was credited with two
months and ten days of total active service.
On 28 Apr 14, a request for post-service information was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit C).
______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. Medical authorities concluded that the
applicant had a pre-existing medical condition that would have
precluded her from enlisting had this condition been made known
in advance. Additionally, since the applicant was on active
duty for only 66 days when the discharge action was initiated,
she was furnished an entry-level separation in accordance with
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2.2. Airmen are given Entry-level
separation/Uncharacterized service 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. Based on the documentation on file in the master
personnel records, the discharge was appropriately administered
and within the discretion of the discharge authority.
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 Bill benefits as the only
period of service that qualifies enlisted members is service
that occurs at the first duty location and beyond. These
benefits are based on months of qualifying service and require
the member to pay in advance. The applicant met neither of
these requirements to qualify for the GI Bill. Under the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, a member can qualify due to a service-connected
disability, but must have served 30 qualifying days on active
duty. The applicant was unable to complete basic military
training or technical training and does not qualify for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. Even if the character of service is changed
to honorable, the applicant has no qualifying period of active
duty service.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 25 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit F).
________________________________________________________________
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 opinion and
recommendation of AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their 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-2014-00566 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 10 Mar 14.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04532
She was informed by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Education Office that her separation code needs to be changed to reflect COG so the DVA can consider her eligibility for the MGIB. She was advised that the DVA will only consider her application if her separation code is changed to COG. She voluntarily separated under the FY04 Force Shaping Program; was offered the MGIB prior to separating and wants to use the benefit she paid into. However, according to the DVA letter dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02935
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an email stating he could request his retirement date be moved from 1 Aug 09 to 1 Sep 09 to take advantage of the new GI Bill and transfer benefits. The applicant’s last duty day was 31 Jul 09 with a 1 Aug 09 retirement date. Additionally, the application does not state applications would be received until 31 Jul 09.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04584
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04584 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to show she transferred her Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits (TEB) to her dependents while on active duty. 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 included at...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-04574
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. However, the Board could find that there was an injustice if the members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-04574
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. However, the Board could find that there was an injustice if the members were on active duty on 1 Aug 09, were not personally counseled about the need to execute a...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01029 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge due to a medical condition. On 1 Dec 03, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended an entry level...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2009 01029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01029 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge due to a medical condition. On 1 Dec 03, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended an entry level...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03244
There is no record in the DMDC that she applied for TEB prior to retirement; therefore, no eligibility for the program could be established, as the law/regulations cite the date of request as the date on which the appropriate service obligation would be established (IA W AFI 36-2306, Attachment 9, A9.18.1.2, A9.18.1.3 and A9.18.1.4). Given the applicant had more than 20 years of satisfactory service and would not have incurred an additional ADSC obligation to transfer his TEB, we find the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05207
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. DPSIT states that in accordance with 38 USC, Chapter 33, Section 3319(f), an individual...may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the armed forces when the transfer is executed. The applicant retired from the Air Force on 16 Sep 2005; therefore, she was not eligible to transfer benefits to her dependents since...