AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
97-03701
DOCKET " M B E R :
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
JUN L 8 1998
Applicant requests the narrative reason for h i s 16 September 1982
discharge (Strength Reduction - First Term Airman) be changed and
that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4E be changed.
(Examiner's Note: RE-4E denotes E - 1 , E-2, or E - 3 with Total Active
Federal Military Service (TAFMS) not exceeding 18 years, 1 month.
RE-4E is a code which can be waived f o r prior service enlistment
consideration, provided otherwise qualified, under an existing
prior service program.) Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and
pxovided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C ) .
The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant f o r 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
w e r e not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 t h e presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Messrs. Charles E. Bennett, John T. Dorsett,
and Steven A. Shaw considered this application on 18 June 1998 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
ET BENNETT
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 THE A I R FORCE
HEADQUARYERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAE
550 C S-treet West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4712
0 3 MAR a
The applicant requests his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a favorable
code. He has not frled a timely request within three years of discovering alIeged error. He
contends he consulted a VA representative following his separation, and was discouraged fiom
applying for correction.
The applicant was discharged on 16 Sep 82 after serving five years, ten months, and 26
days active and inactive service. He received an RE code of ‘YE: Grade is E- 1, E-2, or E-3 with
TAFMS not exceeding 18 years, one month.”
A review of applicant’s military records confirms this RE code is correct. Considering
this, we recommend denial of applicant’s request for change of RE code. However, if the
decision is to grant the relief sought, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect his liE code
as “3K: Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records (AFBCMR) when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.” -
sgt, USAF
Chief, Skills Mugement Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
9703701
. . . . . . . - .
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE- BASE TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
559 C Street West Ste 1 1
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4713
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the Air
Force 16 Sep 82 under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Strength Reduction -First Term Airman)
with an Honorable discharge. He served 05 years, 09 months 14 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting his separation code and reentry code be
changed.
Basis for Request. Applicant claims that his reason for separation is unjust due to the fact that
his term of enlistment was about to finish in Nov 82. He M e r claims his reenlistment code is
unjust because he was not informed that he would not be allowed to reenlist. We defer the
reentry code issue to AFPC/DPPAES for comment and our advisory will address only the
separation reason and code.
Facts. The applicant was involuntarily discharged as a result of an Air Force reduction in
force program in 1982. Applicant did meet the criteria for mandatory release because he was a
fvst term airman below the grade of E-4 with a date of separation (DOS) during 1982 and had an
ineligible for reenlistment code.
Discussion. This case has been reviewed and the reason for discharge and separation code are
appropriate and complies with the directive in effect at the time of his discharge.
Recommendation. Applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing
nor provide facts which warrant a change in his narrative reason for separation or his separation
code. Accordingly, we recommend applicant’s request be denied. He has not filed a timely
request.
JOHN C. WOOTEN, GS-9
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
9703701
- . . . . . . . .
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 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 applicant was approved for retraining into AFSC lClXl and required 30 months retainability after class graduation date.
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). Requested Action, The applicant is requesting a change in his separation and reentry codes which would allow him to reenlist in the Air Force reserves. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate counseling was provided 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). 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 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...
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.
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...