RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01090
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested to be discharged after failing his Career Development
Course (CDC). He was not discharged because of the failure. Two
years later, he was informed the 3A031 CDC was being rewritten due
to mistakes with it.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Jun 94, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force
(RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.
On 18 Oct 96, the applicant was notified by the commander that she
was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for
Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress In On-the-Job
Training. The reasons for this action were as follows:
a. On or about 19 Jul 96, he failed to pass his CDC.
b. On or about 28 Aug 96, he failed to pass his CDC
for the second time.
On 24 Oct 96, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found that the
applicant’s file was legally sufficient subject to proper medical
clearance. The applicant acknowledged that military legal counsel
had been made available to him and consulted the Area Defense
Counsel. He did not submit statements for consideration. 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.
On 7 Nov 96, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance) in the
grade of airman first class with an honorable discharge and an RE
code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or
entry level separation without characterization of service.” He was
credited with 2 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC), Separation
Procedures Section (AFPC/DPPRS), reviewed this application and
indicated that, based upon 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 submit any new evidence
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the
discharge. DPPRS recommends his records remain the same and his
request be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch (AFPC/DPPAE), also
reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code of 2C is
correct.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on
29 Jun 01 for review and response. 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. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that his RE code should be changed.
His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. 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. Therefore, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2 August 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 01, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jun 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 01.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03400 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this...
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...
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...
The commander was recommending that applicant receive an honorable discharge. In an effort to study and pass the second final testing, he and his trainer reviewed the CDC course material. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided letters of recommendation, a letter from his congressman, an application for an Air Force Reserve position, and a letter from the...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant was released from active duty on 15 Oct 96 with an honorable characterization of service after serving 9 years and 2 months. However, if the Board wishes to grant the applicant relief they recommend changing his code to 3K “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.” A...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01768
At the time she was released, she took her end of course exams twice and failed both times due to working 12 hour days and suffering a miscarriage. 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 offices 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. ...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00928
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge, the applicant was given ample opportunity to study and prepare for his Career Development Course (CDC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01087 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2P to a favorable code. Therefore, recommend his record be corrected accordingly. Exhibit B.