Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03008
Original file (BC-2002-03008.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            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,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge From Active Duty.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Air Reserve Station (ARS) Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)  advised  him
that his DD Form 214 reflected the wrong SPD code, which may  have  resulted
in an incorrect  reentry  (RE)  code.   He  also  should  have  received  an
honorable discharge certificate along with his DD Form 214  because  he  was
not entering into the active reserve nor did he have  a  commitment  to  the
inactive reserves at the time of his separation.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD  Form
214.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment,  is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s complete military personnel records were  unavailable.   The
following  information  was  extracted  from  the  available  records.   The
applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force effective 14 March 1986  at  the
age of 21.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman  (E-
4), effective and with a date of rank of 14 March 1989 and was  subsequently
appointed a sergeant.  It appears that his appointment as a  noncommissioned
officer was subsequently vacated.  He served in support of Operation  Desert
Storm/Shield from 2 August 1990 to 25 March 1996.  During  his  active  duty
service, the applicant was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal with  one
device, Humanitarian Service  Medal  with  one  device,  Small  Arms  Expert
Marksmanship Ribbon/Rifle, NCO Professional Military Education  Ribbon  with
one device, Air Force  Outstanding  Unit  Award,  and  the  Air  Force  Good
Conduct Medal with 2 devices.

During  his  active  duty  tour,  the  applicant  received  twelve  Enlisted
Performance Reports.  The following is  a  resume  of  the  applicant’s  EPR
profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    13 Mar 87                     9
     3 Oct 87                     9
     3 Oct 88                     9
    31 Mar 90*                    3
    31 Oct 90*                    2
    24 Jan 91*                    2
    24 Jan 92                     4
     2 Jul 92                     4
     2 Jul 93                     5
     2 Jul 94                     5
     2 Jul 95                     3

* Denotes referral EPR

On 25 March 1996, the applicant was honorably released from active duty  due
to Reduction in Force (RIF) with a separation code  of  LCC  (released  from
active duty) and a reentry code of 4D (grade is senior airman  or  sergeant,
completed at least nine years of TAFMS, but  fewer  than  sixteen  years  of
TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to staff  sergeant.   He  had
served ten years and twelve days on active  duty.   He  received  separation
pay in the amount of $16,250.40.

On 2 September 1998, the applicant enlisted into the Air Force  Reserve  for
a period of six years.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1  March  2002.   He
received the Air Force Reserve Medal with “M”  device  for  his  support  of
Operation Enduring Freedom for the period 4  November  2001  to  3  November
2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant  was  separated  in  accordance
with AFI 36-3208, reduction in force.  According to the applicant’s DD  Form
214, he received $16,250.40 in  separation  pay  (full).   In  order  for  a
member to receive separation pay, he must sign  a  Ready  Reserve  Agreement
that releases him into the Ready Reserve.  In accordance with  AFI  36-3208,
paragraph 9.1.8, “The member must agree in writing to  serve  in  the  Ready
Reserve for at least three years following the separation from active  duty.
 A member who is qualified for separation pay, but is  unqualified  for  the
Ready Reserve still must agree in writing to serve in the Ready  Reserve  in
order to receive separation pay.”  This is also in accordance with Title  10
United States Code, Section 8013 and Executive Order 9397.

DPPRS feels the applicant’s discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
the discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge  authority.  As  a
condition to receiving separation pay, the applicant was  required  to  sign
the Ready Reserve Agreement, which constitutes a release from  active  duty.
Therefore, DPPRS feels no change in his  SPD  code  is  warranted.   When  a
member is released, he does not receive an Honorable Discharge  certificate.
 The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE addressed the applicant’s RE code.  The applicant  was  separated
on 25 March 1996 at the grade of  Senior  Airman  (E-4)  with  an  honorable
characterization of service after serving  ten  years  and  twelve  days  of
active duty.  The applicant did not obtain the rank of Staff Sergeant  (E-5)
prior to completing nine years of  total  active  federal  military  service
(TAFMS).  In accordance with  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistments  in  the  US  Air
Force, individuals who have completed at least nine years  TAFMS  but  fewer
than sixteen years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion  to  Staff
Sergeant will receive a RE code of 4D.   DPPAE  states  that  based  on  the
applicant’s records, the RE code 4D is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant feels he was forced out of the Air Force  by  Force  Reduction
and would have waived the severance pay to take a different separation  code
and reentry code had he known he would have difficulty returning  to  active
duty.  He left active duty in 1996 and entered  the  Air  Force  Reserve  in
1998 as a Security Specialist for the Nebraska Air National Guard.   He  has
served in the security forces career field for over thirteen years  and  has
completed additional  supervisory  and  leadership  courses  since  he  left
active duty.  The security forces career field is currently undermanned  and
he would be willing to stay until his high year of tenure.  The  applicant’s
rebuttal is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has not  been  presented
to show that the reason for the applicant’s separation  and  his  separation
code are in error or unjust.  The  available  record  reveals  that  he  was
released from active duty, rather than discharged, based on  his  acceptance
of separation pay.   It  appears  that  now,  some  seven  years  after  his
separation, he believes he has been disadvantaged by the type of  separation
he  received.   However,  other  than  his  assertions,  the  applicant  has
provided  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  actions  taken  by  Air   Force
authorities in 1996 were in error or unjust, that he  was  miscounseled,  or
that he was treated  differently  than  other  similarly  situated  enlisted
members.  Therefore, we find no basis on which  to  favorably  consider  his
request for a change to the reason for his separation and the  corresponding
separation code.

4.  As to the applicant’s request that his RE code be changed, as  noted  by
the  Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility,  the  code  accurately
reflects his status at the time of  his  separation  and  we  have  seen  no
evidence by the applicant which would lead us to believe that  his  RE  code
is in error or unjust.  We note that although the applicant’s RE  code  bars
immediate reentry, it may be  waived  to  allow  enlistment.   There  is  no
guarantee that enlistment  with  such  a  code  would  be  authorized.   The
determination as to whether the code would be waived is based on  the  needs
of the service to which application for enlistment is made.

5.  Finally, the applicant has requested he be given an honorable  discharge
certificate.  However, based on the fact that  the  applicant  was  released
from active duty in 1996 and the requested certificate may  be  issued  only
at the time of discharge, and because the applicant entered  active  Reserve
status prior to the completion of his three-year Ready  Reserve  commitment,
he was never  discharged.   Hence,  it  would  appear  the  issuance  of  an
Honorable Discharge certificate is not appropriate at this time.

_________________________________________________________________

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 16 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC 2002-03008:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 02, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 02.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Dec 02.




                                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03008

    Original file (BC-2002-03008.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2002-02844

    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 | CY1999 | 9803381

    Original file (9803381.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03381 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be corrected as follows: Block 6 should read 5 August 1999 and Block 26 should read LCC. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03832

    Original file (BC-2002-03832.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01479

    Original file (BC-2007-01479.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 9802110

    Original file (9802110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02151

    Original file (BC-2004-02151.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Block 27 - Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from a “4D” to “1A.” EXAMINER’S NOTE: The applicant’s record has been administratively corrected to add an Air Force Achievement Medal and the Jumpmaster Course. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, airmen in the grade of SrA and Sgt may not reenlist if the new date of separation (DOS) will exceed the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03789

    Original file (BC-2002-03789.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, he was given an RE code of 4D. (Exhibit C) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 March 2003 for review and response within 30 days. The applicant’s assigned RE code of 4D accurately reflects that at the time of his separation he was serving in the grade of senior airman, he had at least nine years of active military service, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703305

    Original file (9703305.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After the first Article 15 was imposed, the commander initiated separation proceedings. The finding of the discharge board is not evidence in and of itself. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the EPR closing 19 April 1996 would have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E6 to technical sergeant (E-6) (promotions effective August 1996 - July 1997).

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03305

    Original file (BC-1997-03305.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After the first Article 15 was imposed, the commander initiated separation proceedings. The finding of the discharge board is not evidence in and of itself. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the EPR closing 19 April 1996 would have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E6 to technical sergeant (E-6) (promotions effective August 1996 - July 1997).