RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01677
INDEX CODE: 100.03
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2I be corrected or upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She is exploring opportunities with the Virginia Air National Guard. The
recruiter informed her that the reentry code of 2I on her DD Form 214
disqualifies her from reentering the service. She was unaware that the Air
Force had placed a code on her DD Form 214 that prohibits her from serving
her country again. Following the events of September 11, she has felt a
passionate need to become a part of an organization that supports and
promotes freedom and love for the country. She strongly believes that the
RE code is an error.
In support of her appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and a copy
of her DD Form 214.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 March 1989. She was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman. On 23 September 1991,
she requested an early separation from the Air Force due to gaining
employment in a privately owned company. She indicated that she had no
intention of reenlisting or becoming a U.S. citizen. Based on her request,
applicant was honorably discharged on 1 November 1991. She served 2 years,
7 months and 23 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the application and states that the RE Code of 2I, “non-
U.S. citizen serving on initial enlistment” is correct. The DPPAE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 July 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response. 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 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. The evidence of record refutes
the applicant’s assertion that her RE code was erroneous at the time it was
assigned. The record reveals she was separated prior to the expiration of
her term of service at her own request and that she was a noncitizen at
that time. Therefore, the RE code she received denoting her status as a
noncitizen was correct. In addition, other than her own assertions, the
applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe her RE
code is unjust or that she was treated differently from other similarly-
situated individuals. Accordingly, her request is not favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 30 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01677 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 May 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes that since there is no RE code directly associated for pregnancy, the RE code “2I” is correct since that was the status of the applicant at the time of separation. 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 12 Oct 01 for...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon discharge from the Air Force he was given the 2I RE code on his DD 214 because he was a non-US citizen serving an enlistment. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that the code of 2I, “Non-U.S. citizen serving on initial enlistment with an honorable...
The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
He would not have enlisted in the Air Force if not for the guarantee he received from the recruiter. On 22 June 1998, he signed a statement indicating he was a homosexual and he requested he be discharged from the Air Force for homosexual conduct. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02240
Active duty EPR "from" dates begin with the date following the preceding evaluation report's closeout date. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant contends that the inclusive dates on the contested report are incorrect; however, after reviewing the...
Active duty EPR "from" dates begin with the date following the preceding evaluation report's closeout date. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant contends that the inclusive dates on the contested report are incorrect; however, after reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02874
On 9 Mar 00, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the offense alleged and imposed punishment that consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class with a date of rank and effective date of 9 Mar 00, and, reduction to the grade or airman. DPPAE states that the RE code assigned at the time of his discharge was correct and he has not satisfactorily indicated that the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy. We find no evidence of...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS determined that based on the documentation in the applicant’s file, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jun 02 for review and comment...
The commander advised the applicant that if his recommendation was approved, his discharge would be described as an uncharacterized entry-level discharge and he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time of his discharge from active duty. A...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that a review of applicant’s military personnel records revealed an AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration), dated 25 Jul 88, denying her reenlistment. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...