AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01847
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO '
- .
Applicant -requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be
upgraded. 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).
A s of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of Cecord, 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 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Mr. Kenneth L.
Reinertson, and Ms. Ann L. Heidig considered this application on
19 November 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
BARBARA A. a WESTGATE d*c
f
/ & h L
Panel Chair
v
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E 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 F O R C E B A S E T E X A S
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAE
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 12
3 o JUL 1998
The applicant requests his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a favorable
code. He filed a timely request within three years of discovering alleged error.
The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 15 Nov 94 with a general (under
honorable conditions) characterization of service after serving two years, one month, and 25
days active and inactive service. 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 discharge indicates
applicant’s DD Form 214 should reflect RE code “2B: Involuntarily separated with an general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.” We have asked HQ AFPCDPPRR, the office
responsible for correcting DD Forms 214, to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect the appropriate
code.
/
Considering the above, we recommend denial of applicant’s request for correction of
RE code. However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, applicant’s record should be
corrected to reflect RE 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.”
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). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). t In September 1998, our office reviewed the applicants records in response to his request for the PH.
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 did not identi5 any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the narrative reason for discharge he received.
* AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01319 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and separation program designator (SPD) code be changed so that he may reenter the Air Force. After 7 years of service, he was honorably discharged from the Army Guard on 14 November 1 9 9 7 with a r l l l l RE code. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
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. Applicant did not identifjl any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant the stated reason for...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Requested Action. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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 office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions DEPARTMENT O F T H E AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS A I R 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 The applicant, while serving...
After consulting counsel, applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting an honorable discharge. He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 15 days and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge. Letter to Board for Correction of Air Force Records, RE: Discharge upgrade/DD form 293, November 6, 1997 8.
The appropriate Air Force offices 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. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions d+L@+ VAUGH E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair V MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: BCMR Medical Consultant 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002 14 April 1998 98-00580 P * REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant was discharged after...