RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00674
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: THE AMERICAN LEGION
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C & D).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. They indicated that on 25 March 1991,
the commander notified the member that she was being discharged for
conditions that interfere with military service. She was diagnosed
with a personality disorder, which was of a severity to impair her
ability to function in the Air Force. An AF Form 418, Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Status Consideration, was
completed on the member on 21 March 1991. This form vacated the
member’s NCO status since she had demonstrated that she could not be
depended upon to perform her duties with the level of responsibility
that is required of an NCO. She received a letter of reprimand for
failing to go to her appointed place of duty on 2 February 1991.
Based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority. The Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) denied the member's request to change her reason
for discharge on 7 April 1997.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. However,
during a review of her records it was determined that her DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, block 12 was in
error. A DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, has been completed to correct
these errors, and is now filed in the member’s records.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant was
discharged 24 November 1986, after serving 4 years, 5 months, and 2
days active service. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C,
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level
separation without characterization of service” is correct.
The evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, with
attachment, that is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00674 in Executive Session on 10 September 2002, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 February 2002.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 April 2002.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 June 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 June 2002.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 July 2002, w/atch.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code the applicant received is the appropriate code for those members separated "involuntarily with an honorable discharge or an entry level separation without characterization of service (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 May 2002, for...
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 1 June 2001 under provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time. A complete copy of the...
On 18 December 2001, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with an Entry Level Separation. Applicant was discharged on 9 January 2002, in the grade of airman basic with an Entry Level Performance and Conduct discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01987 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01488
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01488 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to 1 and that her uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPRS recommends the narrative reason for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01551
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01551 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2C be changed to make him eligible to enlist in the Armed Forces. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the RE Code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01551 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2C be changed to make him eligible to enlist in the Armed Forces. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the RE Code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156
On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.
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...