RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 01-01564
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of ”2C”
be changed to a “1” to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force. In
addition, by amendment at Exhibit E, applicant requests that his DD
Form 214, Block 11 (Primary Specialty), be corrected to reflect two
months as an Aircrew Life Support Helper rather than four months.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
concerning his RE code 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 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 facts and opinions stated
in the advisory opinions concerning his discharge and RE code appear
to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately
rebutted by applicant. With respect to the DD Form 214 correction, we
noted that applicant’s Student Training Report for Aircrew Life
Support Apprentice reflects an entry date of 20 Mar 00. In view of
the fact that the applicant entered the cited course on 20 Mar 00 and
his Block 2/Test date was 17 Jul 00, applicant’s DD Form 214 appears
to be correct. 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. Gregory H. Petkoff, Mr. George Franklin, and
Mr. Albert F. Lowas Jr. considered this application on 26 September
2001 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
E. Applicant’s Response and Ltr fm Applicant,
dated 15 Aug 01, with DD Form 214
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, within 30 days (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.
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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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 opinions appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated the request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit G). The applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit I.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board denial of the applicant’s request for the SAEMR (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 available at the time the application was filed.
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 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.
On 21 Mar 2000, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable and change of his RE code. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing record is attached at Exhibit C. The AFDRB Hearing Record was forwarded to applicant for review and response (Exhibit D.). Accordingly, applicant's request is 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.
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). 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.