RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00810
INDEX NUMBER: 110.02, 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant requests that the narrative reason for discharge and her
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2C be changed. (Examiner’s
Note: RE-2C denotes involuntarily separated with an honorable
discharge.) Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
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). 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 opinions 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 applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
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, Ms. Patricia D.
Vestal, and Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, considered this application
on 18 January 2000, 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 Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
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 facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application on 24 August 1999 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force...
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.
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was honorably discharged on 12 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, and was issued an RE Code of 2C. However, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that he was honorably discharged on 12 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. ...
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.
He states there were Air Force members who had failed this treatment program two or three times and were given chances, but he wasn’t given any. The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of his discharge. 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 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 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). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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). 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.