RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02073
INDEX CODE: 100
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2K (Has been formally
notified by unit commander of initiation of AFM 39-12 action, or being
processed for involuntary discharge under AFR 39-10) be changed so
that he can enlist in the Air Force Reserves.
Although applicant requests his RE 2K be changed, he actually received
an RE code of 2X at the time of his discharge, not 2K, which has since
been changed to 2C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his time on Air Force active duty, he had honorable service
with no disciplinary action.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form
214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) and his previous
evaluation reports.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Apr 74 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.
Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
29 Nov 74 9
5 Jun 75 8
15 Feb 76 8
3 Jul 76 8
3 Jul 77 8
On 3 Aug 77, applicant was notified of permanent disqualification from
the duties under the Human Reliability Program (HRP) based on his
feeling insecure while performing his duties as a security policeman
and that he might shoot himself due to personal and marital problems.
The commander indicated that applicant was evaluated by the mental
health clinic and it was their diagnosis that applicant be
administratively discharged from the Air Force due to his emotionally
unstable situation.
On 12 Aug 77, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the
Air Force as soon as possible because of the problems he had to deal
with over the last several months, his attitude towards the Air Force
in general, and the security police squadron specifically had
degenerated to the point of complete apathy. Applicant stated that
because of his apathetic and defective attitude, he felt that it would
definitely be in the best interest of the Air Force to discharge him.
On 17 Aug 77, applicant acknowledged receipt and understanding of the
letter of notification of permanent disqualification from the HRP and
indicated that he did not intend to request review of the permanent
disqualification.
On 9 Sep 77, applicant was notified by the commander that he was
recommending applicant be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-8y. The reason for the commander’s
proposed actions were: Applicant was emotionally unstable and had
threatened, on at least two occasions, to commit suicide. Applicant’s
emotional problems apparently stemmed from an inability to deal
constructively with the pressures and demands of the Air Force in
general and the security police field in particular. Further, the
commander indicated that it appeared that applicant had personal
problems with an ex-wife, the custody of a son, and his present wife.
Applicant had been counseled by his immediate supervisors, relieved
from duty and placed in a no-threat work environment in an effort to
modify his behavior. He was also counseled by the unit first
sergeant, administration officer, and the commander. The counselings
resulted in little perceptible change in applicant’s attitude and
behavior. In view of the above, the commander recommended the
applicant be discharged from the Air Force and probation and
rehabilitation was not recommended.
On 9 Sep 77, applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of
notification and indicated that he did not request retention in the
Air Force; that he understood that military legal counsel would be
available to assist him upon request; that he did not desire that
military legal counsel be appointed to assist him; and, that he would
not submit a statement in support of his request for retention.
On 15 Nov 77, applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Conditions that Interfere With Military
Service-Not Disability-Other) in the grade of sergeant with an
honorable characterization of service and an RE code of 2X (Considered
but not selected under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)). He
was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 16 days of active service.
On 6 Nov 98, applicant’s DD Form 214, Block 10, was corrected to
reflect an RE code of 2C (Separated under AFM 39-12) (Involuntary
Discharge: Condition, not a physical disability, which interferes
with duty performance).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this
application and indicated that a completed discharge package located
in applicant’s military personnel records indicated he received an
honorable discharge for a “condition interfering with the performance
of duty” and this type of discharge indicated applicant’s DD Form 214
should reflect RE code of “2C.” DPPAE asked DPPRR, the office
responsible for correcting DD Form 214s, to correct applicant’s DD
Form 214 to reflect the appropriate code. Considering the above,
DPPAE recommends denial of applicant’s request for a further upgrade
of his RE code. However, if the decision is to grant the relief
sought, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect RE code of
4G (No Air Force specialty code (AFSC) awarded which is commensurate
with grade).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Special Activities, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this
application and indicated that an error was identified regarding
applicant’s RE code when he submitted a request for correction of his
military records and requested AFPC/DPPRR correct his DD Form 214,
Block 10, to reflect an RE code of 2C.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on
30 Nov 98 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We thoroughly reviewed
the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding the
discharge in 1977. We note that his RE code was changed to 2C on
6 Nov 98 based on the type of discharge he received and we note that
his service characterization was honorable. It appears that his RE
code is now correct based on the facts that existed at the time of his
discharge. Therefore, we have no basis on which to make any further
changes to the record; thus, we must deny the request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 27 July 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 Oct 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 23 Oct 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 98.
OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
Panel Chair
He also acknowledged that this action may result in his discharge from the Air Force with either a general or an honorable discharge and that his failure to consult counsel or to submit statements would constitute a waiver of his right to do so. The reason for his discharge was his failure to proceed scholastically in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 27...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, concurs with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation should be changed. We do believe that the RE code 2C is the correct code assigned at the time of applicant’s separation. OSCAR A. GOLDFARB Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 110 AFBCMR 98-02636 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-03735 DEC 0 2 1997 f MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: issued in conjunction with his Honorable Discharge on 14 October 1994, Gas “&-3K.” records of the Department of the Air Force relating to e...
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. When members schedule leave in late September, they risk losing days if unable to take leave as planned due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a short-notice temporary duty (TDY). _________________________________________________________________ The...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01834 INDEX CODE: 100 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for his separation be changed from “Involuntary discharge: Moral Misconduct or Professional Dereliction: Loss of Professional Status” to “Involuntary Discharge: Secretarial Authority” so that he may serve in the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04021
On 20 Nov 91, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued an entry level separation. The applicant did not provide any evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
A complete copy of the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. In an application, dated 11 November 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his application. Hebo, his Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for his tour on Okinawa clearly show a pattern of indifferent attitude toward his training, his job, and the Air Force, Therefore, they recommend denial of his request for award of the AFGCM, A complete copy of the Air Force...
They recommend the applicant’s request be denied. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 December 1998 for review and response within 30 days. Applicant's Officer Selection Record.