RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02725
INDEX NUMBER: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2B,
issued in conjunction with his 24 October 1996 general discharge, be
changed. (Examiner’s Note: RE 2B denotes involuntarily separated
with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)
discharge.) 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, Messrs. Michael P. Higgins, Patrick R. Wheeler,
and Philip Sheuerman, considered this application on 2 March 1999 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
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’s last available address for review and response (Exhibit D).
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00016 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Y Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. 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).
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.
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.
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). 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 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's response to the advisory opinion 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request on 17 July 1998. The AFDRB Brief 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.
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 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.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00764
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.