Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02874
Original file (BC-2001-02874.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02874
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from "4" to "1."

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is applying to become an officer in the --- Air National Guard.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  form  Active  duty;  and  documents
associated  with  an  ---   State   Department   of   Education   background
investigation.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  29  May  96.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman,  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 May 99.

On 8 Dec 97, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ).  The specific  reasons  for  this  action  was  his
possession  of  a  firearm  in  the  dormitory,  making  a  false   official
statement, unlawfully pushing another airman in the chest  with  his  hands,
and wrongfully exhibiting a deadly weapon in the dormitory.   Applicant  was
advised of his rights in this matter, consulted counsel,  waived  his  right
to demand  trial  by  court-martial,  and  submitted  an  oral  and  written
presentation to his commander.  On 19 Dec 97, 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, suspended until  18  Mar  98.
The applicant elected not to appeal his punishment.

On 2 Mar 00, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the  UCMJ.   The  specific
reasons for this action were for being drunk and disorderly  and  wrongfully
communicating a threat to shoot another individual.  Applicant  was  advised
of his rights in this matter, consulted counsel, waived his right to  demand
trial  by  court-martial,  and  submitted  a  written  presentation  to  his
commander.  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.   That
portion of the punishment reducing the applicant to the grade or airman  was
suspended until 28 May 00.  The  applicant  appealed  the  punishment.   His
appeal was denied by the appellate authority on 14 Mar 00.

On 28 May 00, the applicant was honorably discharged at  the  expiration  of
his term of service.  He served 4 years on active duty and was  assigned  RE
code 4H, which denotes "Serving suspended  punishment  pursuant  to  Article
15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   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.

The 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  6  Sep
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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence submitted in support of his appeal that  a  change
to his RE code is warranted.  We find no evidence of error in this case  and
after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he  has
been the victim of an injustice.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  02-02874  in
Executive Session on 30 Oct 02, 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 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.




                                   LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844

    Original file (BC-2002-02844.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102083

    Original file (0102083.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02083 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed to 1J, which defined means “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation.” RE Code 4H is defined as “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900931

    Original file (9900931.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) Report of Investigation (ROI) reveals that an investigation was initiated based on information that the applicant allegedly raped a female Air Force member on 6 Apr 97, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. Action Authority must provide AFOSI with a Report of Action Taken and evidence disposition instructions.” On 20 Oct 97, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102323

    Original file (0102323.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His former Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3P051 be reinstated. However, if the Board recommends the applicant’s rank of E-4 be restored, they recommend changing his RE code to 3K (i.e., Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 22 July 1999 and imposed on 30 July 1999, was improper.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200254

    Original file (0200254.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201273

    Original file (0201273.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001850

    Original file (0001850.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01850 INDEX CODE: 110.00 480-13-0897 HEARING DESIRED: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he can enlist in the Air Force Reserve. On 26 Oct 98, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded applicant’s discharge to honorable (see Exhibit C). In this regard, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001348

    Original file (0001348.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 8 September 1999, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of JFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Panel Chair AFBCMR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103532

    Original file (0103532.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03532 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Mississippi Air National Guard. Applicant's EPR profile reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 17 Dec 95 2 2 Aug 96...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02376

    Original file (BC-2002-02376.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02376 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 6 Apr 98 and imposed on 23 Apr 98 be set aside and removed from his records. He asked four times about his rights regarding the base and state driving laws. Therefore,...