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." Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
On 27 Mar 98, the Special Activities Branch, AFPC/DPPAES, advised
the applicant that his RE code of 4M was a code that could be
waived to permit his entry into the Coast Guard, provided he met
the requirements for enlistment (Exhibit C) .
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests
and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The
advisory opinions 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 and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
Concerning the applicant's request for the meaning of his
narrative reason for separation, we noted that the appropriate
Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has so advised
him. In view of this, and since his request does not involve a
correction of record, no further action is contemplated regarding
his request.
With regard to the applicant's request that-his RE code of 4M be
changed, we noted that he was discharged as a result of a
"Defective Enlistment Agreement.'' We would like to point out
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 4M (Air Force
accurately
breach
corresponds with the reason for his separation. Therefore, in
the absence of persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis on which
to act favorably on the applicant's rewest.
enlistment/reenlistment
of
agreement)
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 Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond,
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 3 6 -
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
4- !*
JJ-)
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. AFPC/DPPAES Ltr to Applicant
D. Advisory Opinions
E. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
DEPARTMENT OF T H E AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCh4R
FROM: HQ AFPCLDPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4712
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Record
0 7 MAY 898
We conducted a review of applicant’s case file. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code
“ 4 M is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, USA%!
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Dir of Personnel Program Management
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER
RANDOLPH A I R FORCE BASE TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the Air
Force 21 Feb 97 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Defective Enlistment Agreement) with an
honorable discharge. He served‘09 months and 28 days total active service.
Reauested Action. The applicant is requesting to be advised what “Defective Enlistment
Agreement” means in item 28 of his DD Form 214.
Facts. “Defective Enlistment Agreement” means that the Air Force nonhlfilled it’s enlistment
agreement as outlined in AFI 36-3208, paragraph 3.11.
JOHN C. WOOTEN, GS-9
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations 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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion 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. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I 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). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
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 did not identif) any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied.
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). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear 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 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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98- 01464 3Uh 2 7 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: 2. t of the Air be corrected 998 and Chief Examiner Air Force Board for...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Further, the issues raised in this application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were discussed in the legal reviews at that time. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of...
He received an approved Career Job Reservation (CJR) in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3EOX2, with no Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB); and, he was honorably discharged effective 16 November 1997 and, on 1 7 November 1997, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years. Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd Jul 2 1 , 1998 D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E AIR FORCE 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 E A S E TEXAS 2 2 JUN 1998 MEMORANDUM...