RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01328
INDEX CODE 100.06
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a
general or under-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge) 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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Mar 99 and was
assigned to the 85th Security Forces Squadron at Keflavik NAS,
Iceland. During the period in question, he received a Letter of
Counseling (LOC); a Letter of Admonishment (LOA); seven Letters of
Reprimand (LORs); an Article 15 with forfeiture, extra duty, a
reprimand and a suspended reduction; and a vacation of the suspended
reduction. He was separated in the grade of airman with a general
discharge on 30 Apr 00 with 1 year and 1 month of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B), are contained in
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force
(Exhibits C and D).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirmed that the applicant’s RE code is correct.
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. Denial is
recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 19 Jul 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After careful consideration, we
are not persuaded that the applicant’s RE code should be changed to
one allowing reenlistment. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record. The
applicant alleges his problems stemmed from his distress after
learning his aunt had breast cancer. However, according to his
supervisor’s memorandum for the record, the applicant heard about his
aunt’s condition on 29 Mar 00. While we can understand his concern,
the applicant does not explain why he had already received one LOC,
one LOA and four LORs before he learned of her illness. He also
rejected his supervisor’s suggestion for counseling. In a little over
a year of service, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place
of duty 12 times. On another occasion, he neglected to bring required
equipment and could not man his post. The applicant has not shown that
his general discharge, which drove the RE code he received, was
inappropriate given his frequent episodes of misconduct. The applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or
an injustice and, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 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 3 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01328 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jul 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
JOHN. L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03705
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against him were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than his own misconduct. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2002-03705 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02214
On 22 May 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE Code and reason and authority for discharge be changed. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He will always have a mark against him as long as his records remain unchanged. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01351
He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his contention of no longer being affected by “previous flaws”, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00674
(b) On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to call his duty section as directed. On 18 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) approved applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00157 INDEX CODE 100.06 110.02 COUNSELS: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1985 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so that he can enlist in the Army. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03767
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 30 May 03 for review and response. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was given an entry level separation for misconduct as a result of his receiving an Article 15, four LORs, and counseling. ...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01569
Applicant believes with all of the support documentation in his case, he is a very valuable asset to the Air Force In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; extracts from his military personnel record, including copies of his performance reports and AF IMT 418s, along with several letters of character reference. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s commander concurred and denied his reenlistment.
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...