RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02076
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He desires his RE code changed so he can be allowed to reenlist. Prior to
his separation from the Air Force, he submitted a request to have his High
Year Tenure (HYT) extended by two years. His request was denied without a
reason being given by the chain of command at Ramstein Air Base, while
similar requests from his squadron were approved without question.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a
character reference, and other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 May 1990 in the grade of
airman basic for a period of 4 years.
A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
16 Jan 92 3
16 Jan 94 5
16 Jan 95 5
16 Jan 96 3
16 Jan 97 4
16 Jan 98 4
30 Nov 98 4
Applicant received an RE code of 4D (Grade is senior airman or sergeant and
member has completed at least 9 years of Total Air Force Military Service
(TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not yet been selected
for promotion to staff sergeant).
Applicant was honorably discharged on 5 May 2000, in the grade of senior
airman, in accordance with AFI 36-3208 (Reduction In Force). He completed
9 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial. They indicated that per Air Force policy,
senior airman and sergeants HYT is ten years total active services. The
applicant did not achieve promotion to SSGT prior to his HYT and was
discharged. According to the applicant’s memorandum, he applied for a HYT
waiver. It was routed through his chain of command and sent to the 86th
Wing at Ramstein for final approval/disapproval, but was returned for more
justification. Accordingly, commanders are the final approval authority on
HYT waivers. Based on applicant’s memorandum, they can conclude that the
HYT waiver was processed and the commander denied applicant’s request.
Based on the documentation in applicant’s case file, the RE code given at
the time of discharge is correct. Furthermore, the applicant has not
satisfactorily indicated the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance
with Air Force policy.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 25 October 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice warranting a change in the
applicant’s RE code. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-02076
in Executive Session on 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 June 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 October 2002,
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 October 2002.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03832
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03832 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code reflected on his DD Form 214 be changed to allow him to return to active duty. DPPAES further states the reenlistment eligibility code "4D" is the applicable code for a member whose grade is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03913
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was required to extend his current enlistment for 18 months to meet the service obligation for an in-place overseas tour, he requested to extend to his high year of tenure date (HYTD) of 8 April 2007. The applicant’s HYT as a Master Sergeant, at the time of his extension, was 8 April 2007 (24 years). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00223
On 10 Sep 03, the Board did not restore his SSgt grade but instead promoted him to senior airman effective 9 Apr 03 and waived the HYT restriction so he could be eligible for promotion consideration by the 04E5 cycle. His present reenlistment (RE) code of 4D renders him ineligible to reenlist because of HYT restrictions, i.e., he has not yet been promoted to SSgt. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPRR notes the applicant is not reenlistment eligible,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03008
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03008 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation program designator (SPD) code be changed from LCC (released from active duty) to JCC (discharge) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4D be changed on his DD Form 214,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03008
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03008 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation program designator (SPD) code be changed from LCC (released from active duty) to JCC (discharge) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4D be changed on his DD Form 214,...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01479
He did not serve 12 years of active duty without being promoted and should not have been forced to separate. The Board notes the applicant’s RE code is incorrect and will be administratively corrected to reflect a code of 4D “Grade is senior airman or sergeant, completed at least nine years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to staff sergeant.” After careful consideration of the available evidence, the Board found no indication that the actions...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04089
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04089 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4D (senior airman or sergeant with at least nine years total active military service but fewer than sixteen years) be changed to enable her to reenter the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00756
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that since there is no documentation in his records relating to his request for separation, they cannot provide an advisory concerning the circumstances leading to his release from active duty. As to the applicant’s separation code, it appears that the code, which is directly related to the reason for his separation, is, in fact, correct. The record indicates that the applicant was...