AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02245
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to
honarable, and, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and
narrative reason for separation be changed.
Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and
denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge and
changed of reason for discharge (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air
Force office evaluated applicant's request for change of his RE
Code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit D).
The AFDRB Brief and the advisory opinion were forwarded to the
applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's requests that his
general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative
reason for separation be changed, and the available evidence of
record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to
warrant corrective action. The decision of the AFDRB appears to
be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by
applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied
rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no
basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, the
applicant's requests are not favorably considered.
Regarding the applicant's request that his RE code be changed, we
note that members separated from the Air Force are furnished an
RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and
circumstances of their separation. At the time an RE code is
assigned, it reflects the Air Force position regarding whether or
not, or under what circumstances, the individual should be
allowed to reenlist. The applicant's RE code of 2B accurately
corresponds with his discharge characterization and the fact that
his service was involuntarily terminated.
Accordingly, the
applicant's request that his RE code be changed is not favorably
considered.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Ms. Martha Maust, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, and
Mr. Frank J. Colson considered this application on 14 Jan 98 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603
and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. AFDRB Brief
D. Advisory Opinion
E. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding AFDRB Brief and
Advisory Opinion
?
DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E T E X A S
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 1 50-47 12
3 1 JUi I997
B
U.S. AIR FORCE
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
A review of applicant’s case file was conducted. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
Code “2B” is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, USAF
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Dir of Personnel Program Management
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge and changed of reason for discharge (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request for change of his RE Code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant and his counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). The applicant had previously submitted an application to the BCMR in June 1986 for record correction, but this apparently was not acted upon in lieu of first being considered by the SAFPC Discharge Review Board, He applied for...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). As a result of this misconduct, you received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 4 June I996 (Atch 2). As a result of this miscontluct, you rcccivcd an LOC 011 23 April 1996.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 26 October 1998. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). The AFDRB brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 97-01826 (Case 2) COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO I Applicant requests that the narrative reason for separation be changed from marginal performer to convenience of the government; that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2P be change to a 1; and that his separation code of JEM be changed. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions...
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board,the right to a personal appearance with counsel and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. ORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The Board concluded the misconduct described in the applicant’s record warranted the General characterization.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant I s request on 17 July 1998 (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant I s request on 17 July 1998 (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 16 September 1996. In accordance with policy, the application was forwarded to this Board for further consideration (Exhibit C). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 3 Aug 99. The decision of the AFDRB was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.