AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY R E C w B 2 4 lggg
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 02388
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of
2C, issued in conjunction with his 2 3 June 1998 entry level
separation, be upgraded to a 1. (Examiner's Note: RE-2C denotes
entry level separation without characterization of service.)
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 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, Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Mr. Patrick R.
Wheeler, and Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, considered this application on
5 January 1 9 9 9 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
--
lBenedict A. Kausal IV
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 1 4 9
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 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 AFPCDPPRS
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 from the
Air Force 23 Jun 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Entry Level Performance and
Conduct) with an uncharacterized discharge. He served 06 months and 07 days total active
service.
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting his reentry code 2C be changed in
order for him to reenlist.
Basis for Request. Applicant does not claim an injustice in the discharge he
received only three (3) months ago.
Facts. The applicant was notified by his commander on 1 1 Jun 98 that discharge
action had been initiated against him for entry level performance and conduct. Applicant had
failed to make satisfactory progress in the Correctional Custody program. Specifically, he
received three letters of counseling and 27 AETC Forms. Discrepancy Reports, for numerous
infractions ranging from inspection failures to not marching. In addition, he had received Article
15 punishment for wrongfidly consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age
of 21. He also failed to obey a lawful general instruction by wrongfilly consuming alcoholic
beverages in the student dormitory. 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 did consult counsel and submitted a written
statement in own behalf appealing for another chance to prove himself. On 22 Jun 98, the
discharge authority approved the Entry Level Separation for performance and conduct. Airmen
are given entry level separatioduncharacterized service characterizatian 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.
Recommendation. Applicant did not identie any specific errors in the discharge
processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in his reason for discharge. Accordingly, we
recommend applicant's request be denied. He has filed a timely request.
JOHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
DEPARTMENT O F THE A I R F O R C E
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE PERSONNELCENTER
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
0 1 OCT 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4712
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.
k
KATHLEEN R. LOPEZ, MSgt, U S d
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). 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 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 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). - 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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. The applicant alleges miscounseling by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) regarding the option to reenlist.
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). 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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-02087 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 1 16), it is directed that: provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with separation code “KFF.” records of the Department of the Air Force relating to e...
On 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional evidence and requested that the Board reconsider her application (Exhibit F) . The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of her discharge.
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...