RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01058
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: PENNY J. DIERYCK,
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to “1”.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged in 1991 due to self-elimination from technical
school. After completing basic training, he was sent to Sheppard AFB
for training in the KC-135 aircraft maintenance career field. During
December 1990, he went home and upon his return to school, he decided
he no longer chose to fulfill his obligation with the Air Force. He
became despondent and his attitude was poor. He was offered a change
in career fields but opted to receive an entry level separation. At
the time of his discharge, he was informed by the First Sergeant and
Squadron Commander that he would not have trouble getting into the
Armed Forces if he tried to reenlist.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 18 October 1990, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.
On 11 February 1991, applicant was notified by his commander that he
was recommending him for discharge for failure to make satisfactory
progress in a required training program. Applicant acknowledged
receipt of the discharge action and waive his right to submit
statements.
On 14 February 1991, the discharge action was approved. On 21
February 1991, applicant was discharged under the authority of AFR 39-
10, Entry Level Performance, character of service was
“Uncharacterized” and issued a RE code of “2C” (Entry Level
Separation). He served 4 months and 4 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, reviewed this application and
states that the type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code and
after their review of the case file, the RE code of “2C” is correct.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 May 199, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. No response was
received from the applicant; however, a statement was provided from Major
Penny L. Dieryck, applicant’s aunt. A complete copy of this statement is
attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s
contentions, we are not persuaded the reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code he was issued is either in error or unjust. In this respect, we
note the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory authority to
promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of the
Air Force. In the exercise of that authority, he has determined that
members separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code
predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of
their separation. At the time an RE code is assigned, it reflects the
Air Force position regarding whether or not, or under what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist. There
has been no showing the Secretary abused this discretionary authority
or that the particular RE code assigned was contrary to the prevailing
directive. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. John E. Petitt, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 April 1999, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 3 May 1999.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 May 1999.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 June 1999.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02644 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed to “3A” to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air Force Reserves. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Separations...
The 1 May 00 second opinion from the psychologist was noted; however, a majority of the Board further concludes that the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Chair AFBCMR 00-01513 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00930 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to honorable, change the reason for...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
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/counsel for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's/Counsel’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...
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 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 offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Contrary to what the applicant states in her request, the "2Q" code was not assigned simply to prevent her immediate reenlistment, but rather to reflect the fact that she was separated with an unfitting medical condition under provisions of AFR 35-4 and the disability evaluation sys- tem. Page 2 AFBCMR Case #...
On 2 July 1998, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years, for which he received a Zone B bonus for approximately 4 years, 10 months (the 13- month extension time was deducted because it was obligated service). A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 July 1998 for review and...