RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00055
INDEX CODE 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may
reenlist in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His reentry code is unfair because he had a vindictive rater. He was
wronged by a corrupt rating system. He had a corrupt and vindictive
rater, who did not understand he had a medically ill child.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits his child’s medical
records and numerous letters from friends.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on
14 February 1996 for a term of 4 years. The applicant was discharged
with service characterized as honorable on 13 February 2000 in
the grade of airman first class. He served 4 years of active service.
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 C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE indicates the applicant’s records revealed that on
14 October 1998, he received a referral Enlisted Performance Report
(EPR). On 3 March 1999, he was denied the Good Conduct Medal. On 8
March 1999, the applicant’s commander signed an AF Form 418, Selective
Reenlistment Consideration, denying him reenlistment due to
incapability to conform to Air Force standards, demonstrating very
poor judgement, disregard for attending scheduled appointments, and
incapability to retain AFSC information. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.
The applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action
to deny reenlistment was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air
Force policy. Therefore, based on the review of his case file, DPPAE
indicates that the applicant's RE code 2X is correct.
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
22 March 2002, for review and comment 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change to the
applicant's reenlistment code. We have reviewed the applicant’s
contentions and the statements provided with this appeal. In
addition, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the
applicant was rated unfairly, that the report is in error, or that the
evaluators were vindictive against the applicant, as alleged. His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. In
regards to he RE code, we agree with the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 02-00055
in Executive Session on 13 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of the applicant’s discharge from active duty. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant has not provided any new evidence of error or injustice. The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice and, absent...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1999, after 6 months on active duty and after being identified with an adjustment disorder. He indicated that the applicant had an adjustment disorder with personality traits that interfered with his military duties/training and was the cause of his discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00782 INDEX CODE 112.07 128.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment on 9 November 2001 be voided and a constructive reenlistment request of 20 January 2002 be granted to qualify for a higher Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00231 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and states that he was separated from the Air Force based on a diagnosis of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02509
(It appears the supportive statements provided by the applicant at Exhibit A were presented with his rebuttal comments to the rater’s assessment.) A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that in reference to AFPC/DPPAE stating that a review of his records revealed that on 8 June 1983, Colonel H--- signed...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03485
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03485 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow enlistment in the Marines. In accordance with his agreement with the Air Force, on 19 July 1999, he requested voluntary separation due to non-fulfillment of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01262
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 August 1994, for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class (E-3). The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
Additionally, she did not provide any evidence that geographic separation resulted in an unfair evaluation. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Feb 01 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00850
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of E-3, with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 19 Apr 01. Air Force Instruction 36-2604, Service Dates and Date of Rank, stipulates that “Airmen in the following categories receive a DOR equal to the date of enlistment in the RegAF: Non-prior service enlistees (members who have served less than 24 months total active federal military service) or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01407
At the time of this enlistment, he was serving in the grade of E-6, with a total of 14 years, 4 months and 8 days of active military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. John...