RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00016
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
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). 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
opinion 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 Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, and Mr.
Laurence M. Groner considered this application on 17 May 2000, in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the
governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
2O January 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPAES
550 C Street West Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4712
SUBJECT Application for Correction of Military Record
We conducted a review of applicant's case file The Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) Code "2C" is correct The type of discharge drove assignment of the RE
code.
Special Programs and BCMR Manager
Directorate, Personnel Program Management
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
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 applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force for miscellaneous reasons and the request was approved for his separation to be effective 06 Aug 97.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant did not identif) any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received. Accordingly, we recommend applicant's request be denied.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Applicant states he understood he would be on convalescent leave during this time. Applicant was on leave en route between assignment from Leave history shows 8 days charged leave 1 Jun - 8 Jun AFB to days c o n s n t leave 14 - 20 Jun 97, and 39 days charged leave 21 Jun - 29 Jul AFB hospital on 9 Jun due to acute low back 97.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Further, the issues raised in this application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were discussed in the legal reviews at that time. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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 records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
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 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 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 opinion 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 30 September 1999. 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.