** SI
-
IN THE MATTER OF:
_. -
.- -
DOCKET NO: 93-00826
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD%^? PROCEEDINGS
-
SS
i
/oc>,03 :
SEP 20 & '
0
*a .
.
-L. -----
Applicant requests his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and the
narrative reason for separation be changed.
Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate. Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided agvisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 facts and .
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear 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, applicant's request is denied.
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 t b , presentation of new re-levant I _
evidence which was not reasonably availzble at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Martin H. Rogers, Mr. C. Bruce Braswell,
and Ms. L. Julie Copenhaver considered this application in
adcordance with the provisions of Air Force Regulation 31-3 and the
governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
-
-
-
&*-
~
i
V
MARTIN H. ROGEfS
Panel Chairman
Exhi bi t s :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
'B.
C. Advisory Opinions
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
Available Master Personnel Records
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). He received an RE code of “2H: Participating in Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for drugs, or has failed to complete Track 4.” Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he received a general discharge for “A Pattern of Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” This type of...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. code be The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. Based on the above, we recommend denial of applicant’s request for correction of RE code.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C ) . Unfortunately, the AF Form 41 8 denying applicant reenlistment is not on file in his military personnel record. However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect his RE code as “3K: Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant signed the form on 22 Sep 94, indicating his acknowledgment of nonselection and his intent to appeal the decision.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (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. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharg&progessing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the discharge he received.
The appropriate Air Force o f f i c e evaluated applicarit ‘ s request ana provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit Z The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) . T r. 0 additional evaluation was forwarded to applicant f c r re-Jie+; ar,d comment (Exhibit G ’ i . Applicant’s response to the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H. The appropriate After careful consiaeratio~ cf applicant's r e q u e...
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 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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. 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. There is no record of the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel being questioned within the three-year...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
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.