RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-01327
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed
to a favorable code to permit reenlistment. The applicant received an RE
code of 2X, which defined means “First-term, second-term or career airman
considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective
Reenlistment Program (SRP).” 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. Charles E. Bennett, Mr. Michael Barbino, and Ms.
Kathy Boockholdt considered this application on 6 January 2000 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the
governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
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 applicant was approved for retraining into AFSC lClXl and required 30 months retainability after class graduation date.
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 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 Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request for upgrade of his general discharge and to change his RE code on 30 August 1999 (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request concerning the RE code and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit D). The decision of the AFDRB and the advisory opinion were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E).
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). 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 and counsel 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 office evaluated applicant's request concerning the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03484
Applicant asserts that the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) failed to provide adequate counseling regarding an authorized Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). We took notice of the applicant's 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 injustice. The applicant’s Air Force...
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). 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). 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.