RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00285
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: JAMES B. THOMAS
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenlist
in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His involuntary separation was unjust because he went into the Alcohol
Treatment Program on his own. He states there were Air Force members who
had failed this treatment program two or three times and were given
chances, but he wasn’t given any. He was unable to see the Air Defense
Counsel (ADC) face to face to speak with him because he (the ADC) was on
leave. He had to talk to another lawyer, on the phone, which he believes
had a negative bearing on his case. He believes that had he been allowed
to speak with defense counsel face-to-face, he would have been better able
to communicate and express himself to counsel.
He was informed that no statement showing his failure in the Air Force
Rehabilitation Program would be in his records.
In summary, he believes that the punishment of being discharged did not fit
the violation of USAF regulations of which he has been accused. He
believes he should have been given a second chance to seek more thorough
treatment for alcoholism as have other people in the same command.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 January 1992, for a
period of four years.
On 24 May 1994, he was promoted to the grade of senior airman.
On 26 March 1997, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary
discharge action had been initiated against him for failure in Alcohol
Abuse Treatment. The commander indicated the reason for his recommended
action was that on 27 February 1997, the Substance Abuse Program Treatment
Team determined applicant had failed to progress in the Substance Abuse
Program Tract 4a, outpatient treatment, due to his failure to maintain
abstinence as required. The applicant was afforded military counsel and
elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 24 April 1997, the
discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed
the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge without probation.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of senior airman, was discharged
from the Air Force on 9 May 1997, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen (Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure), with
an honorable discharge. He served 5 years 3 months, and 16 days total
active service. He received an RE code of “2C”. RE code 2C indicates
involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level
separation without characterization of service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPAES, reviewed the
application and states that 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. Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, reviewed the
application and states that RE code 2C is correct. The type of discharge
drove assignment of the RE code.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 10 May 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forward to applicant
for review and response within 30 days. 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 23 September 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated , w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Apr 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 22 Apr 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of his discharge. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 May 1999. Applicant submitted a response and states that he is requesting the RE code and separation code be corrected, but not for the purpose of reenlisting in the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03406
On 14 February 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge with an entry-level separation for a condition that interferes with military service, specifically, for a mental disorder. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s records document an unsuiting adjustment disorder and a history of mood disorder, possibly bipolar disorder existing prior to...
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...
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
On 17 Sep 98, applicant was notified by his commander that she was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The records indicate the applicant’s military service was properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s case file was conducted and the RE code is...
The Medical Consultant further states that no error or injustice has occurred in the applicant's case and he recommends no change in the records. However, if the Board were to offer administrative relief, they would recommend changing her separation and narrative reason to "JFF- Secretarial Authority" (Exhibit D). The Chief, Skill Management Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed the application and states the reenlistment eligibility code "2C" is the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02473 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active duty or his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to reenlist in the service. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 98. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel...
On 31 Jul 81, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of airman basic with an RE code of 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Trainee (BMT) eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth) and a separation code of JFU (Failed to Meet...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that airmen are given entry- level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received...