AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98-01584
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
auv 3 3
-
Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 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 n o t
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. Charlene M. Bradley, Mr. Joseph G.
Diamond, and Mr. Terry A. Yonkers considered this application on
10 November 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant’s DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E A I R 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 B A S E T E X A S
JUL 2 17998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 1 1
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated fiom the
Air Force 03 Apr 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Entry level Performance and Conduct)
with an uncharacterized discharge. He served 02 months and 05 days total active service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting his reentry code be changed fiom
2C to 1C so he can enlist in the Navy.
Basis for Request. Applicant states his offenses were minor in nature, he was
never court-martial. He believes it is conceivable that the person who typed his DD Form 214
made an error typing 2C instead of 1C.
Facts. The applicant was notified by his commander on 12 Mar 98 that discharge
action had been initiated against him for unsatisfactory entry level performance or conduct. The
commander indicated his action was being recommended because of applicant’s failure to adapt to
the military environment, failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program,
reluctance to make an effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty
performance, his lack of self-discipline and minor disciplinary infractions as indicated by a Letter
of Reprimand dated 24 Feb 98.. 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. He was advised he had a right to consult counsel and
the right to submit statements in his own behalf. He consulted counsel and submitted a statements
in his own behalf requesting retention in the Air Force. On 02 Apr 98, the discharge authority
approved the Entry Level Separation. Airmen are given entry level separatioduncharacterized
service characterization when separation action is initiated against them in the fim 180 days of
continuous active service.
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 identifjl any specific errors in the discharge
processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the discharge he received. Accordingly,
we recommend applicant’s request be denied. He has filed a timely request.
Militaq Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
D E P A R T M E N T O F 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
2 3 JUL 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 12
We conducted a review of applicant’s case file. The Reenlistment Eligibility (N3)
Code “2C” is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
’KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, ~ ~ g t
USAF
,
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Dir of Personnel Program Management
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 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). 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 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 advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). He applies now to change his reenlistment code from "2Q" to one that will allow reentry to the military if and when he might choose.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinions 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. The commander indicated his action was being recommended because of applicant's failure to make...
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 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, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-01680 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT : Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Applicant states he didn't realize that his discharge was as bad...
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...