RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01405 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect a discharge date of 24 Feb 90.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force on 22 Oct 89 because he had been accepted into a Navy officer commissioning program.  On 24 Feb 90 he was disenrolled from the Navy commissioning program and discharged.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant attended initial active duty training on 27 Jan 83 and continued to serve in the Reserve Component.

On 7 Aug 87, the applicant entered the regular Air Force and on 22 Oct 89, was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Enter Officer Training Program – Other Service.”  

On 8 Mar 16, the applicant’s case was forwarded to us from the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

A review of military personnel records reveals AFPC/DPMARS2 memorandum to the applicant, dated 19 Oct 89, which reflects:  Paragraph 2, “Discharge is to be effective the day prior to his enlistment in the U.S. Navy”; and Paragraph 5, “Ensure A1C Amador understands that if he is eliminated from the Navy commissioning program, that he will not be granted automatic reentry into Air Force enlisted status.”  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The applicant was discharged from the Air Force in order to pursue a commissioning program with a different branch of service.  The discharge from the Air Force was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  If the applicant failed to complete the commissioning program with another branch of service, and was discharged as the applicant contends, then that branch of service is responsible for providing documentation relating to the discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM 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 22 Feb 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 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 not been the victim of an error of injustice with regard to his Air Force record.  The Board determined the period of service in question was with the U.S. Navy and the DD Form 214 in question appropriately captured the applicant’s period of service within the Air Force.  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-2016-01405 in Executive Session on 3 Aug 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01405 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 15 Nov 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 17.
	
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.