RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01498
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be issued separate DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect each period of honorable service he served and that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) database be updated accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1991 he was court-martialed and received a dishonorable discharge after 13 years of flawless service. In the appellate process, his discharge was changed to a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  Shortly thereafter, he received his DD Form 214 in the mail.  In Section 18 of the DD Form 214 it states that there was "Continuous Honorable Active Military Service from 28 Jul 78 through 31 May 88."  How is it that he can be given a BCD, but at the same time have continuous honorable service?  He should have received at least three DD Forms 214, each reflecting his term of service and the type of discharge received.  After his initial enlistment he was discharged and signed another contract.  After that period of service, he was discharged again and signed another contact.  He received an Honorable Discharge certificate after each period of service and should have been issued a DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 he received gives the appearance that his entire period of service ran continuously. 

In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, his Statement of Service, and copies of his Honorable Discharge certificates.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 28 Jun 78.  He was honorably discharged on 30 Aug 82 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 31 Aug 82.  He was honorably discharged on 31 May 88 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 1 Jun 88.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 84.  

In March 1992, applicant was tried by general court-martial for a specification of rape, three specifications of assault upon a female, a specification of fraudulently obtaining allowances, and a specification of wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.  He plead not guilty and was found guilty of all specifications.  Sentence adjudged on 14 Mar 92 was a dishonorable discharge, confinement for five years, reduction to airman basic, and a fine of $5,666.00.  On 11 Apr 97, upon appellate review, the findings of guilty to the specification of rape were set aside and dismissed.  His dishonorable discharge was changed to a bad conduct discharge (BCD) and the remaining findings and sentence were affirmed.  Applicant was discharged on 16 Apr 97.  He served 16 years, 8 months, and 8 days on active duty.  The period 14 Mar 92 through 24 Mar 94 was considered time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that in accordance with AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, "If a member is being separated from one status to continue in another because of immediate reenlistment or enlistment then a DD Form 214 is not issued"; Table 4, rule 11,states the "Date Entered Active Duty This Period" for airmen is the date entered Active Duty for this period of continuous active duty"; and Table 4, Rule 30 states to "Include continuous honorable active military service for a member who has previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and who is separated with any discharge characterization except honorable.  'From' date is the date of initial entry into active duty, or the first day of service for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued; the 'To' date is the date before the current enlistment."  

His discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and was well within the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Applicant did not submit ay new evidence of identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his previous contentions and adds that if one reviews his DD Form 214, Section 24 will show that his total cumulative service characterization as "Bad Conduct."  No one will review the remarks section.  In fact he has been offered no less than five prominent positions of employment.  With each a copy of his DD Form 214 was requested.  When they review his DD Form 214 and see BCD, he was denied the positions.   When he points out that the remarks section and shows his Honorable Discharge certificates, the prospective employers ask how can he be given a BCD but at the same time have continuous honorable service.  He attempted to get Virginia state license plates that veterans are authorized, but was denied because is DD Form 214 indicated BCD.  

His complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that issuance of additional DD Forms 214 is warranted.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the appropriate standards were not applied in this case, that he was denied any of the rights and privileges he was entitled to, or that he was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01498 in Executive Session on 1 Oct 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jul 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair