RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03182
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to
allow her to enlist in the Coast Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was very young and was rushed out of the Air Force not knowing she
would not be allowed to join another branch when she got older/grew
up.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the Brief prepared by
an Examiner for the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings. A complete copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant’s requests for an upgrade of discharge to honorable, change
of reason for discharge, and change of reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code were denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 15
March 2001. A copy of the AFDRB hearing is attached at Exhibit C.
The BCMR and Special Programs Manager, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the
application and states that the RE code 2C is correct; and that the
type of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 16 April 2001, a copy of the AFDRB Brief and the evaluation by
AFPC/DPPAE were forwarded to applicant for review and response within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 decision of the AFDRB and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our 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 14 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Albert Lowas, Jr., Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Brief, dated 27 Mar 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Apr 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Apr 01.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02322 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so she can reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). On 9 Apr 93, the applicant submitted a...
He was not discharged because of the failure. Based on applicant’s failure in his CDC’s and no record of misconduct, the SJA recommended that the applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
He was not discharged because of the failure. Based on applicant’s failure in his CDC’s and no record of misconduct, the SJA recommended that the applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
Based on the findings of the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and the applicant’s apparent strong desire to serve his country the Board believed the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. On 15 May 1999, applicant submitted his statements, Letter, 2BW/JA, dated 30 August 1995, letters of appreciation and recognition, and copies of his records, and his...
Based on the findings of the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) and the applicant’s apparent strong desire to serve his country the Board believed the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. On 15 May 1999, applicant submitted his statements, Letter, 2BW/JA, dated 30 August 1995, letters of appreciation and recognition, and copies of his records, and his...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also evaluated the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code from “3A” to “2N.” However, if the relief sought is granted, then the author recommends the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K” (“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K” provided by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02079 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation code of JBK (Completion of Required Active Service) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed to LCC (Reduction in Force <Full Separation Pay>) to match the reason for separation...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes that since there is no RE code directly associated for pregnancy, the RE code “2I” is correct since that was the status of the applicant at the time of separation. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Oct 01 for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02965 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force. He requests additional information be provided concerning his discharge. A complete copy of this response is appended...
On 23 April 1963, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his discharge (Exhibit B). Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.