RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-03440
INDEX CODE: 100.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C
be upgraded. RE Code 2C is defined as “Involuntarily separated under
AFR 39-10 with an honorable 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). 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 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 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 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Ms. Sophie A. Clark, and
Mr. Joseph A. Roj considered this application on 8 July 1999 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and
the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 commander indicated his action was being recommended because of applicant's failure to make...
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 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. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
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 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-1999-01620
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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). 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.
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). 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.