RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00236
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can go back
into the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was exposed to burning marijuana on an Indian reservation.
There was some question concerning the validity of his urinalysis.
Applicant's complete submission, which includes supportive statements
from family members and an acquaintance, is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 December 1999. On 10
December 1999, the applicant, while enrolled in Basic Military
Training (BMT) submitted a urine specimen to be tested. The specimen
was subsequently determined to be positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol
(Marijuana) at a concentration of 117 nanograms per milliliter
(ng/ml). In the notification letter, it was noted that the DOD cutoff
level was 15 ng/ml.
On 28 December 1999, the applicant’s commander notified him that
discharge action had been initiated against him for fraudulent entry
into the Air Force. The commander advised the applicant that if his
recommendation was approved, his discharge would be described as an
entry-level separation and he would be ineligible for reenlistment in
the Air Force. He was further advised that the action was being taken
because he had intentionally concealed prior service drug usage which,
if revealed, would have resulted in the rejection of his enlistment.
On 8 December 1999, he had certified that he had not used any drugs,
including marijuana and on 10 December 1999, submitted a urine sample
that was determined to be positive for marijuana. Had the Air Force
known of this history, it would have rendered him ineligible to
enlist. He was advised of his right to consult counsel and to submit
statements on his own behalf. On 28 December 1999, the applicant
waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in his
own behalf. The discharge authority reviewed the case and approved
the entry-level separation for fraudulent enlistment.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was
separated from the Air Force on 6 January 2000 under the provisions of
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Entry-Level
Separation/Fraudulent Entry into Military Service-Drug Abuse), with an
uncharacterized discharge. Applicant spent one month in basic
training and received no active duty creditable service since his
separation was for a fraudulent entry.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the
application and states that they believe the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation at the time of his discharge from active duty. Further,
the discharge action was within the discretion of the discharge
authority and the applicant was provided full administrative duty
process. The records indicate the member’s military service was
properly reviewed and appropriate action was taken. The applicant did
not submit any new evidence, identify any errors in the discharge
processing, nor provide facts that support changing the reason for his
separation. 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 the RE code 2C is correct. The type of
separation drove assignment of the RE code.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states the he has
been honest in everything which concerns his enlistment in the Air
Force from start to finish. He understands his circumstances are
unusual and he has tried to provide new evidence on his behalf. He
has obtained character statements, a letter from S--- and has been
honest and timely. Although he was offered counsel while at Lackland
AFB, he was completely discouraged from appealing his case while
there, however, he immediately began the appeals process the week he
returned home. He remains firm in his request to be eligible for
reenlistment.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 13 July 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Mar 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 30 Mar 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Apr 00.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02249
On 14 March 2000, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. He had served for 28 days at the time of his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01333
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion...
In a legal review of the discharge case file, the wing deputy staff judge advocate, found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an entry-level separation. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and submits three letters of reference and again states his desire to reenlist in the Air Force. Our finding in this regard is based on the fact that,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03735
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03735 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C,” “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge: or entry level separation without characterization of service,” be changed to RE Code...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03283
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He used drugs at a going away party before he entered service and has not used drugs since that time. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03...
AFPC/JA states that THC marijuana has a half-life in urine samples. Therefore, they do not feel that the Legal Advisor's refusal to instruct the board on the discharge characterization options constitute reversible error, A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICAN TIS RE VIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUATIO8: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that he disagrees with their findings. While the applicant believes his rights to due process...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02447
He was subsequently discharged from the AF with an entry-level separation and service characterization of uncharacterized, as he had not served for 180 days at the time of discharge. Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge. Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1996-00259A
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluations and states that a perfectly decent laboratory says the specimen is tainted and the Air Force says the results are inconclusive. The results did not conclusively demonstrate that there was no match between the specimen and the collected DNA sample from the applicant. The AFIP/CME-DNA evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02394
In support of the application, the applicant submits his separation document, a letter from AFLSA/ADC, copies of support letters (3), and copies of documentation from his military personnel record. On 13 August 1997, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve and accepted for enlistment in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years. The applicant was honorably discharged on 12 September 2001 for completion of required active service with a...
Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his separation code. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the applicant’s request and states the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...