Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101413
Original file (0101413.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NO:  01-01413
                             INDEX CODE:  100.03

      APPLICANT                   COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO


Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  2C
be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Navy.  RE code 2C  is
defined as “Involuntarily separated with an  honorable  discharge;  or
entry  level  separation   without   characterization   of   service.”
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 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. Frederick R. Beaman III, Mr. E. Edward Hoard,
and Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr. considered this  application  on  29  August
2001 in accordance with the provisions of Air  Force  Instruction  36-
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.




                                        FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                  Panel Chair

Exhibits:

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinions
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102175

    Original file (0102175.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 01-02175 INDEX CODE 100.06 126.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “4H” (Serving suspended punishment to Article 15) be upgraded 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100888

    Original file (0100888.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00814

    Original file (BC-2005-00814.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 March 2002, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. The applicant’s RE code had its basis in his involuntary discharge for fraudulent entry into the service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102102

    Original file (0102102.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101409

    Original file (0101409.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101193

    Original file (0101193.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03479

    Original file (BC-2002-03479.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    They were throwing beer bottles out of the car window into a trash can and a bottle went through a hotel window. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101680

    Original file (0101680.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101105

    Original file (0101105.doc) Auto-classification: 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101421

    Original file (0101421.doc) Auto-classification: 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). 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.