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. Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
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).
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 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 January
1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U . S . C . 1552.
M&RTHA MAUSTA
Panel Chairman
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
DEPARTMENT O F T H E A I R F O R C E
H E A D Q U A R T E R S A I R FORCE 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
B
US. AIR FORCE
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
2 1 JUL ‘I997
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
’ FROM: HQAFPC/DPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 12
A review of applicant’s case file was conducted. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
Code “2P”is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, U h F 0
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Dir of Personnel Program Management
~ E P A R T M E N T OF THE AI R ~ O R C E
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 A I R F O R C E BASE T E X A S
U.S. AIR FORCE
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPRP
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
#
JUL 1’1
1 9 4 ? - 1 9 9 7
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged fiom the Air Force 07
May 81 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Marginal Performer) with an honorable discharge.
He served 0 1 year 03 months and 15 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting a change in his reason for discharge to
“Convenience of the Government”, and a reenlistment code and separation code change.
Basis for Request. Applicant claims that he has been a good citizen since his discharge. That
he is beginning to get his life in order.
Facts. On 01 Apr 8 1, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary discharge
action be initiated against him for his failure to attain the required job skill proficiency to
advance to the three skill level in two different career fields. The commander advised that he had
been counseled, given instructions and briefed on numerous occasions the responsibilities
inherent in his M S C , all with little or no improvement on his part. The applicant was advised
that if he desired to remain in the Air Force, he could submit statements in his own behalf and
that military legal counsel would be made available to him. Applicant indicated that he did
desire legal counsel but, did not desire to submit statements in his own behalf. On 4 May 81 , the
discharge authority approved the discharge as a marginal perfonner and directed that the
applicant be issued an honorable discharge.
t
-l
c
Discussion. This case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or
irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant. The discharge complies with directives in
effect at the time of his discharge. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed
and appropriate action was taken.
Recommendation. Applicant did not identi@ any specific errors in the discharge processing
nor provide facts which warrant a change in his reason for separation, a change in his
reenlistment code assigned, or change in his separation code. Accordingly, we recommend
applicant’s request be denied. He has not filed a timely request.
yJOHN C. WOOTEN, GS-9
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Programs and Procedures Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
#
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 offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions E. Applicant’s Response D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE 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 TEXAS AUG 3 11998 MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the ‘“application be denied (Exhibit C) . Requested Action. The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS I i U.S. AIR FORCE I ~ s,, MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM HQ AFPCDPPRS 550 C Street West Ste 11 Randolph AFB 7X 78 150-47 13 i DEC 1 6 887 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records The applicant, while serving in the...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. OCT 2 11998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-0227 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: records of the Department of the Air Force relating t be corrected to...
The applicant states personnel at the Military Personnel Flight erroneously completed an AF Form 964 and updated this data (MPF) at which indichted he refbsed to get retainability for a PCS to the CONUS. Further, he states that he visited the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on 12 Sep 97 where he was “promoted” to SSgt in an impromptu ceremony. Recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to staff sergeant effective and with DOR of 1 Sep 97.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The commander advised applicant that if his recommendation is approved, that his discharge would be described as entry level separation and that he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the...
He was honorably discharged on 1 April 1998, and reeenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 April 1998, of four (4) years with entitlement to a Zone A, multiple % Selective Reenlistment Bonus with obligated service through 24 August 1999. for a period C p e f Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-01231 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: s s m : Having...