RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02530
INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that she may join the
Army Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was honorably discharged and her RE code does not match her service
characterization. In support of her request applicant provided a personal
statement and copies of documents associated with her discharge from the
Air National Guard (ANG). Her complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPFP states
that she was twice discharged from the Alabama ANG for fraudulent
enlistment. In 1992 she failed to reveal that she had dependent children
and in 1994 she failed to disclose her arrest by civilian authorities as an
accomplice to murder (see Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded and states that prior to her first enlistment she did
in fact indicate that she had two children, which at the time did not
reside with her. She was told by her recruiter to list only the felonies
that she had been convicted of, not those in which she was only questioned.
Numerous background checks have been performed on her and none contained
any incriminating information. Applicant asks that the Board perform a
background check prior to rendering a decision in her case. Her complete
submission is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Evidence has not been provided
in support of her appeal which would lead us to believe that a change to
her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code is warranted. We took notice of her
complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we do not
find her uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air National Guard. The applicant’s failure to
timely file has added to the difficulty in obtaining all relevant records,
the burden of which must be the applicant’s, not the Air Force’s.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that she has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
In the absence of persuasive 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 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 Docket Number 01-02530 in
Executive Session on 27 Feb 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olsen, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Feb 02.
PHILIP SHEUERMAN
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02635 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility status reflected on his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed to reflect eligible, vice ineligible. ...
Unfortunately, the other unit within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the same time of his promotion board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should. This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control grade report.
AFBCMR 01-02194 INDEX CODE: 131.05 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02685
AFPC/DPFP noted that in his statement, the applicant questioned the procedures at the Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory. According to the National Guard Bureau's Counterdrug Office, a positive test result is only reported after a member’s original urine sample has been tested and resulted in a positive test on three separate tests: screen, re-screen, and confirmation testing. The evidence of record reveals that the applicant was involuntarily discharged from the Air National Guard and as a...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In letters, dated 16 May and 27 July 2001, the applicant’s Senator provided copies of correspondence provided to him by the applicant and her counsel (Exhibits J and M). In further support of the appeal, counsel submits the 6 August 1982 version of the Air Force regulations governing crew rest and flight duty limitations....
On 2 Nov 00, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an E-3, and was given a DOR equal to her date of enlistment (DOE). AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, is the governing directive for computing dates of ranks. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03638 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation be changed on her DD Form 214 and her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her the opportunity to reenter the Air Force. In this respect, it appears that the narrative...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02693
DPFP stated that, after being diagnosed with a seizure disorder, the applicant was discharged from the New Mexico Air National Guard on 1 Feb 01. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided the following advisory opinion. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
His complete submission is at Exhibit A. Based on the evidence of record and that verified by HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC), the applicant was properly credited for all of the service which he performed during his career, including the credit of 304 points (which equates to 10 months) of active duty he received for Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 3 August 1962. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...