FOURTH ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 91-00564
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 19 February and 15 March 1999, the Board reconsidered applicant’s
request that her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of RE-2P (Marginal
Performer) be upgraded. The Board found insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and denied her request. A complete copy of the Third Addendum to
Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit UU.
In an undated letter, the applicant requested reconsideration of her
application. Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit VV.
In letters, dated 11 April 1999, to the Director, Air Force Review Boards
Agency, the applicant requested her RE code be upgraded to “1J.”
Applicant’s complete submissions are attached at Exhibit WW.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing the
applicant’s RE code to “2C (Involuntarily Separated with an Honorable
Discharge).” In this respect, we note that the RE code of “2P”, assigned
to the applicant at the time of her discharge in 1977, appropriately
identified her as a marginal performer. However, this RE code was
subsequently changed and is currently used to characterize individuals who
are in an Absent Without Leave (AWOL)/Deserter status. The applicant
contends this RE code has prevented her from obtaining a security clearance
and resulted in the loss of employment. However, she has provided no
evidence to support this contention. We previously requested that she
provide some form of corroborative evidence in support of her contention,
but to date, she has failed to do so.
2. After further reflection and noting the emotional stress resulting
from the applicant’s belief that the RE code of “2P” is harmful, we find no
compelling basis not to award the applicant an RE code which identifies the
basis for her separation by today’s standards. This change, however,
should in no way be construed as an indication that we believe she has been
harmed in any way by the issuance of the RE code of “2P” in 1977. The fact
remains she was separated from the Air Force as a marginal performer. The
recommended change is based solely on an effort to provide the applicant a
degree of emotional satisfaction and hopefully bring closure to this issue
once and for all.
2. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant upgrading the
applicant’s RE code to “1J”. Our earlier decisions and rationale in
denying her an upgrade of her RE code to “1J” remain valid. Based on the
evidence of record, we do not believe the RE code should be changed to
“1J.” This code is issued to individuals who are eligible for reenlistment
but elect to voluntarily separate. In the absence of a showing that she
did not commit the multiple infractions depicted in her records, we find no
compelling reason to recommend favorable action on her request that she be
issued an RE code of “1J.”
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of her discharge on
14 September 1977, she was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of
“2C.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 26 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. John L. Roebuck, Member
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit UU. 3rd Addendum to Record of Proceedings, w/atchs.
Exhibit VV. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Exhibit WW. Letters, Applicant, dated 11 Apr 99.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1991-00564A
FOURTH ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 91-00564 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 19 February and 15 March 1999, the Board reconsidered applicant’s request that her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of RE-2P (Marginal Performer) be upgraded. In letters, dated 11 April 1999, to the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02730
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was seen by mental health providers shortly after starting basic training and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder which interfered with her military duties/training and she was discharged because of the medical condition interfering with her training. A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was seen by mental health providers shortly after starting basic training and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder which interfered with her military duties/training and she was discharged because of the medical condition interfering with her training. A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03244
The discharge authority approved the recommended separation and the applicant was honorably discharged on 21 Jul 80. The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days on 1 Dec 06. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00505
On 19 Oct 81, the discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. Although the applicant has requested that his separation code be changed to medical reasons or in the best interest of the Air Force, we found no evidence that his physical fitness to perform his duties at the time of his separation was questionable. We note that the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that the evidence of record supports a change to the applicant’s separation document...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00339
Under current provisions, AFI-36-2606, Reenlistment in the Air Force, a “2P” RE code is used to identify personnel “absent without leave; deserter or dropped from rolls.” However, there is no need to change her RE Code, because it was properly assessed under current provisions at the time. We note that the applicant was discharged from the Air Force for “marginal performance.” The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that she should have received an RE code that would allow her...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01528 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” on the DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,” be changed to “1J” to allow enlistment into the Hawaii Air National Guard. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01087 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2P to a favorable code. Therefore, recommend his record be corrected accordingly. Exhibit B.
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). 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.
On 5 Sep 9 7 , the applicant provided documentation relating to her post-service activities and requested the Board reconsider her application (see Exhibit F). After reviewing the statements and accomplishments pertaining to her post-service conduct, and noting that she was issued an honorable discharge, we believe her RE code should be changed to \\RE 3A" in order that she may apply for enlistment in the Air Force Reserves. The following documentary evidence was considered: AFBCMR...