ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00774
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE
On 23 September 1999, the Board considered and denied applicant's
application requesting that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.
On 2 February 2000, applicant submitted a letter requesting that his RE
code be changed. (Exhibit F)
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application
and states that in their opinion, the commander’s action was justified as
evidenced by the discharge case. Therefore, they recommend denial of
aplicant’s request.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.
____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 August 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not
persuaded the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he was issued is either in
error or unjust. His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the
detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately
address those allegations. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for
the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
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 applicant
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 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. ROP, dated 24 Sep 99 w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s letter, dated 2 Feb 00.
Exhibit G. AFPC/DPPAE letter, dated 3 Aug 00.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted two letters of recommendation from the commander of the Air Force Band of the Golden West and the commander of the Air Force Band of Mid-America. A review of the applicant’s military personnel records revealed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 13 Jan 99, denying him reenlistment. Therefore, as a matter of clemency, we recommend that the applicant’s RE Code be changed to “3K.” This is a code that can be waived...
A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished responses and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the...
On 31 Jul 81, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of airman basic with an RE code of 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Trainee (BMT) eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth) and a separation code of JFU (Failed to Meet...
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
The Medical Consultant further states that no error or injustice has occurred in the applicant's case and he recommends no change in the records. However, if the Board were to offer administrative relief, they would recommend changing her separation and narrative reason to "JFF- Secretarial Authority" (Exhibit D). The Chief, Skill Management Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPAES, also reviewed the application and states the reenlistment eligibility code "2C" is the...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The military personnel flight (MPF) extended his enlistment based on a service commitment after graduation and failed to request a waiver of the service retainability required to attend the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Academy. He further states that after 13 years in the Air Force this is totally unjust to him and the time he has dedicated to the Air Force (Exhibit E). ...
He gave a history of ingestion of a bottle of aspirin to avoid going to school, and a history of inpatient mental ward hospitalization and treatment with anti-psychotic mediations. The fact that his mother had an affair when his father was away on business with an individual that abused him right before his parents separated had a vast impact on his childhood. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
Based on the information he received from the MPF, on 16 Aug 00, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years. The applicant states, and we believe, that he based his decision to reenlist on his entitlement to receive the SRB. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-03317 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat...