Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100838
Original file (0100838.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
          AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS




 IN THE MATTER OF:     DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00838
            INDEX CODE:  110.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO




 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:


 His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed  so  that  he  can
 reenlist in the military.


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:


 While going through the discharge process, it was explained  to  him
 that with his current RE code, he was  eligible  to  enlist  in  all
 other branches of the service other than the  Air  Force.   When  he
 talked to the recruiters recently, he was told that he must get  the
 RE code changed to one that can be waived.  For the past five years,
 he has worked with the Housing Authority’s Police Force as a private
 investigator and as a weapons instructor.  Throughout this time,  he
 has always tried to maintain the military discipline he  was  taught
 while in basic training.  He asks that he be  given  the  chance  to
 prove himself and to repay a bit of the opportunities that  the  men
 and women who have worn the uniforms of the Armed Forces  earned  by
 taking his place in the wall that defends our country.


 Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


 _________________________________________________________________


 STATEMENT OF FACTS:


 On 18 May 95, the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
 (RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.


 On  29 Jun  95,  applicant  was  notified  that  his  commander  was
 recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for fraudulent
 entry.  The reason for the commander’s  action  was  that  applicant
 intentionally concealed arrests by civilian  authorities,  which  if
 revealed, could  have  resulted  in  rejection  of  his  enlistment.
 Specifically:


            a.    On 27 Jun 93, he was arrested for receiving  stolen
 property.


            b.    On 10 Sep 93, he was  arrested  for  possession  of
 criminal tools and receiving stolen property/motor vehicle.


            c.    On 22 Feb 94, he was arrested for receiving  stolen
 property/motor vehicle.


            d.    On  7 Jun  95,  he  was  arraigned  on  charges  of
 receiving stolen property and motor vehicle and  failure  to  comply
 and given a court date of which he failed to appear.  A warrant  for
 his arrest was issued on 29 Jun 95.


            e.    He would not have been allowed to enlist in the Air
 Force had this information been revealed to  his  recruiter  at  the
 time of his enlistment.


 After consulting with counsel, applicant  submitted  statements  for
 consideration.


 On 25 Jul 95, the  applicant  was  separated  with  an  entry  level
 separation under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208  (Fraudulent  Entry
 Into Military Service) with an uncharacterized character of  service
 and an RE code of 2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable
 discharge; or entry level  separation  without  characterization  of
 service).  He served 2 months and 1 day  total  active  service  but
 received no credit for this time due to his  fraudulent  entry.   He
 had lost time from 27 Jun through 29 Jun 95.


 Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
 (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an  investigative  report
 which is attached at Exhibit C.


 _________________________________________________________________


 AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC),  Separation
 Procedures  Section,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application   and
 indicated that based on the documentation in the file, the discharge
 was consistent with the procedural and substantive  requirements  of
 the discharge regulation at that time.  Additionally, the  discharge
 was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   The
 applicant did not identify any errors or injustices that occurred in
 the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts  warranting  a
 change in his separation code.  Accordingly,  DPPRS  recommends  his
 records remain the same and his request be denied.


 A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at
 Exhibit D.


 The Special Programs and AFBCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also  reviewed
 this application and indicated  that  they  conducted  a  review  of
 applicant’s case file.  The RE code 2C is  correct.   The  applicant
 was involuntarily separated with his character of service listed  as
 uncharacterized.


 A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on
 18 May 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
 been received by this office.


 On 13 Jul 01, a copy of the FBI report was  forwarded  to  applicant
 for review and response.   The  Board  requested  applicant  provide
 additional  evidence  pertaining  to  his  post-service   activities
 (Exhibit G).  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  have
 reviewed  the  applicant’s  entire  record  and  the   circumstances
 surrounding his separation from the Air Force in 1995.   If,  as  he
 asserts, he has  overcome  his  difficulty,  then  we  applaud  him.
 However, members separated from the Air Force are  furnished  an  RE
 code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service   and   the
 circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE  code  accurately
 defines the circumstances of his separation.  In view of the  above,
 we have no basis on which to make any changes to the  record;  thus,
 we find no compelling reason to grant the request.


 4.   We note the letters of recommendation provided from applicant’s
 Military Personnel Records from 1995.   However,  he  has  furnished
 limited current information on  his  activities  since  leaving  the
 service.  Should be provide current  information,  i.e.,  statements
 from his employers (past  and  present),  letters  from  responsible
 persons who know him well  and  can  attest  to  his  character  and
 standing in the community, and, if available, a police clearance, we
 would be willing to reconsider his 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 30 August 2001, under  the  provisions  of  Air
 Force Instruction 36-2603:


                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member


 The following documentary evidence was considered:


      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Apr 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DDPPAES, dated 23 Apr 01.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 01.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 01, w/atchs.






                                    PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                    Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629

    Original file (BC-2004-02629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101231

    Original file (0101231.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Accordingly, they recommend that his separation code and narrative reason for separation be changed to “JFF - Secretarial Authority.” Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. However, since the governing directives do not provide for a narrative reason of “adjustment disorder,” we recommend that the reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority,” with a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002030

    Original file (0002030.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, an injustice occurred in the narrative reason for discharge being listed as “Personality Disorder.” The current AFI regulating separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. The Consultant recommends that the reason for discharge be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The RE code should remain unchanged as it reflects the applicant’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000522

    Original file (0000522.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a report of Applicant’s arrest record (Exhibit C). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that relief should be granted. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 May 00.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200284

    Original file (0200284.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 21 Aug 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (fraudulent entry into military service). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that, on 15 Aug 01, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02015

    Original file (BC-2006-02015.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Aug 2005, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for fraudulent entry. On 18 Aug 2005, the applicant was discharged under AFI 36-3208, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse, with an uncharacterized entry- level separation, and an RE code of 2C. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801210

    Original file (9801210.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Jun 58, the applicant's commander requested that he be separated from the Air Force with an undesirable discharge. The records also indicated that the applicant was court-martialed and found guilty of only one of the two specifications and charges. DPPRS stated that the applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts which would warrant an upgrade of the discharge he received almost 40 years ago.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000004

    Original file (0000004.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00004 INDEX CODE: A50.00, A50.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03294

    Original file (BC-2005-03294.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03294 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 Apr 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Other than Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 Feb 90, the applicant’s case was forwarded through channels by the wing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01160

    Original file (BC-2007-01160.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Uncertain whether he would be allowed out of the Air Force, he indicated he was a homosexual, which was not true. MSgt W--- concluded from his investigation the applicant’s statement was indeed true and he had not declared himself as a homosexual in an attempt to fraudulently obtain a discharge from the Air Force. The evidence of record reflects the applicant was involuntarily discharged for homosexual admission, given an honorable discharge and assigned an RE code of “1M”.