RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO.: 00-00873
INDEX CODE: 100.00,110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
The applicant requests her general (under honorable conditions) discharge
be upgraded to honorable and her reentry code be changed. The
applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s
request for upgrade of her discharge and change in her reentry code.
AFPC/DPPAE states the reentry code was correct (Exhibit C). The AFDRB
Brief and AFPC/DPPAE letter were forwarded to the applicant for review
and response (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no
response.
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 decision of the AFDRB appears to be
based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by the
applicant. Absent persuasive evidence the 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 available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson
and Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, considered this application on 24 October 2000,
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
Patricia D. Vestal
Acting Panel
Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion and AFDRB Brief
D. AFBCMR Letter Forwarding Advisory Opinion and AFDRB Brief
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of her discharge and change of reason for her separation (Exhibit C). The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by applicant.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 13 Aug 99. The decision of the AFDRB 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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant I s request on 17 July 1998 (Exhibit C). 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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant I s request on 17 July 1998 (Exhibit C). 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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 25 Oct 99 (Exhibit C). 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.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’ request on 12 May 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.
While the RE code assigned to the applicant, at the time, was correct and in accordance with regulation, we believe it would be an injustice for applicant to continue to suffer its effects in the way of enlistment opportunities in the armed forces in view of his accomplishments since leaving the service and the support provided with his application. Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit B.
At the time the applicant requested information about reenlisting, current policy stated that a member could only reenlist 90 days prior to their expiration of term of service (ETS). 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 June 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01620
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.