AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 98-01989
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
FFfI 3 g> mB
Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow
eligibility to reenter the Air Force. RE Code 2C is defined as “Involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of service.” Applicant’s
submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office 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). 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 facts and opinions
stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been
adequately 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 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 issue(s)
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 the presentation of new
relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders,
considered this application on 10 December 1998 in
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
ophie A. Clark
of Air Force
Exhibits:
A. Applicant’s DD Form 149
B. 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 Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Recor
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated fiom the
Air Force 27 Feb 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Entry Level Separation-Misconduct)
with an uncharacterized discharge. He served 01 month and 29 days total active service.
Reauested Action. The applicant is requesting his reentry code 2C be changed in
order for his reentry on active duty Air Force.
Basis for Request. Applicant only states he made a mistake by having himself
removed fiom the Air Force. He would like another chance to correct his mistake and serve
proudly.
Facts. The applicant was notified by his commander on 23 Feb 98 that discharge
action had been initiated against him for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The
commander indicated his action was being recommended because the applicant had, with intent to
deceive, sign an official statement that prior to joining the Air Force, knew of his conscientious
objections to using weapons, killing, or harming anyone, which statement was totally false, and
was then known by himself, to be so false. For this, Art 15 punishment was imposed and he was
required to forfeit $199.00 pay. 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 waived his right to consulted counsel and to
submitted a statements in his own behalf. On 25 Feb 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 first 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.
- I '
1
-
Recommendation. Applicant did not identi@ 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.
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
. ..
D E P A R T M E N T 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 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 A I R FORCE B A S E T E X A S
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 12
0 1 SEP 19%
We conducted a review of applicant’s case file. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
Code “2C” is correct. The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, US@
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
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) . 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 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 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...
She requested separation for pregnancy and was separated on 03 Jan 98, an arbitrary date. Her separation date was 8 days before she would have been eligible for the MGIB. AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ USAFDPPE 1040 Air Force Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20330-1040 I Bill Eligibility 0 6 AUG 1998 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 Public Law 98-525, the legislation which enacted the Montgomery GI Bill, requires that individuals who first became...
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.