RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00628
INDEX CODE: 100
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING: YES
The applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of
“2X” on the DD Form 214 be corrected. Applicant's submission is at
Exhibit A.
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 facts and opinions stated
in the advisory opinion 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 documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give the
Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially added
to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not
favorably considered.
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. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler,
and Ms. Rita J. Maldonado considered this application on 30 September
1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E. Applicant’s Response
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). Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, and Ms. Rita J. Maldonado considered this application on 30 September 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C.
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 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 counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Counsel’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 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 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 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). 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.
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 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.
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). A response from the applicant’s wife 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.