RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02411
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His military service was spotless except for an incident involving
a coworker who he allowed to stay with him off base while the
individual was waiting to be discharged. The Office of Special
Investigations (OSI) found a small amount of marijuana hidden in
the room where the coworker slept and he (applicant) was given an
Article 15 (which is not in his records) even though he tested
negative on a urinalysis test. As evidenced by his performance
reports, his overall performance was above standard. He served his
country with dedication and the highest level of professionalism
and was consistently recommended for promotion. He would like to
serve his country again through the Air Force Reserves.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
was 20 Nov 78.
On 21 Jan 83, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for wrongfully using
marijuana on 2 Dec 82.
On 21 Jan 83, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance
and did not submit a written presentation.
On 28 Jan 83, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the
following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the
grade of airman first class and forfeiture of $100 pay but the
execution of that portion of the punishment which provided for
reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until
21 Jul 83, at which time, unless sooner vacated, it would be
remitted without further action. Applicant did not appeal the
punishment. The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).
On 28 Jan 83, the applicant’s commander signed an AF Form 418
(Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status
Consideration) vacating his noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCO)
status due to his actions concerning his bearing and behavior in
the squadron were not becoming of an NCO.
On 13 Sep 84, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under
the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Fiscal Year 1984 (FY84) Early
Separation Program - Strength Reduction) with an honorable
characterization of service in the grade of senior airman. He
received an RE code of 2X (First-term airman considered but not
selected under SRP, or has been denied appointment to NCO status,
or has had NCO status vacated). He was credited with 5 years, 9
months, and 24 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and recommends denial. The
applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action
to vacate his NCO status which denied him reenlistment was
inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy. Should
the Board decide to grant relief to the applicant, his RE code
should be changed to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR)).
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
26 Oct 01 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 have
reviewed the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force in 1984. The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE
code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 18 December 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Oct 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 01.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code he received of "2Y" is correct and this code indicates the applicant was a second term or career airman who was denied an appointment to noncommissioned officer (NCO) status, or his NCO status was vacated. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
A letter was submitted requesting a copy of the IG Investigative report pertaining to the applicant and SMSgt F- ---. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Mar 01 for review and response within 30 days. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of her appeal, we do...
However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, applicant’s record should be corrected to reflect an RE code of 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 complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 January 2001 a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00075
If the applicant had not been court-martialed and reduced to the grade of AB, he would have been promoted to the grade of SRA on 16 Feb 04, provided there were no ineligibility conditions and he had the recommendation of his commander. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes the applicant’s incorrect promotion to airman and A1C and provides details regarding the applicant’s promotion eligibility and the pertinent DORs based on various circumstances. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02754
The following AF Forms 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, were on file in the master personnel record. She received an RE code of 2Y “A second-term or career airman considered but not selected for NCO status, or had vacated NCO status under AFR 39-13.” The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 7 Oct 05, copies of the Air Force...