RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02086
INDEX CODE: 128.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment date be changed from 8 Jan 02 to 18 Jan 02 so that he
may be entitled to a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for his Air
Force Specialty Code of 2T251.
_________________________________________________________________
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 are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and recommended denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug
02 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 of
applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find
insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective
action. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear
to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by
applicant. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb
the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02086 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00241 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army. The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00368 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may enter the Air Force Reserve. We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00562 INDEX CODE 112.07 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment be changed from 3 December 2001 so that he may qualify for a higher selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). He was still eligible to reenlist at the time of the change as his original date to reenlist was 11...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02991 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to one that will allow her entry into the Air Force or Air Force Reserve. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01984
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, a personal statement, and extracts from his military personnel and medical records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Nov 03...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01850
Although the discharge was proper, the applicant may now meet enlistment medical standards and the evidence warrants a change of RE code. The Consultant recommends approval but adds that a change of RE code by the Board is not equivalent to a finding of medically qualified for enlistment and does not guarantee acceptance by the Air Force for enlistment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises the 4C RE code was applied in accordance with governing...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01904
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP states that the applicant’s request is vague because he does not specify exactly which report he is contesting. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that due to the applicant’s new date of rank to A1C of 9 January 1995, he was promoted to Senior Airman (SrA) on 5 September 1996 (20 months time-in-grade). We took notice of the applicant's complete...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01749 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01749
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01749 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis...