Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202847
Original file (0202847.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02847
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her RE code be changed to allow her to reenlist in the service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While stationed at Grand Forks AFB, ND she was informed that she would  need
to prepare a family care plan that would take care of her son’s  affairs  in
case of an emergency.  She was unable to provide a family care plan  because
all family members or non-military members willing to take care of  her  son
were settled in  Texas  and  her  husband  was  residing  in  Florida,  both
locations were outside the required radius.  However, she  is  now  residing
in Texas and has family and friends able and willing to  care  for  her  son
during her absence.  In addition, her son is older  which  allows  for  more
child-care opportunities.

During her time as an active-duty  member,  she  feels  she  provided  great
service to the Air Force.  She received her five  level  within  her  career
field  within  ten  months  of  her  arrival  on  station.    She   received
promotions, honors  such  as  a  Certificate  of  Acknowledgement  and  many
letters of appreciation.  She also received the Good Conduct Medal  and  the
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

In support of her appeal, applicant  provides  a  personal  statement.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to her discharge are contained in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  states  that  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.   Applicant  provides  no  facts  warranting  a
change in her discharge.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service” is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  20
December 2002, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice that would warrant a change to  her
RE code.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility that the RE code  which  was  assigned  at
the time of her separation accurately  reflects  the  circumstances  of  her
separation and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to  believe
otherwise.  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 RECOMMENDS 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 17 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 October 2001.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 28 November 2001.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 January 2002.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 February 2002.





                                  VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392

    Original file (BC-2007-00392.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 January 2003, the applicant received an LOC for failure to obey an order or regulation. DPPAE states there is no evidence in the applicant’s record to support that the RE code she received is incorrect or that it created an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234

    Original file (BC-2003-01234.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01351

    Original file (BC-2003-01351.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his contention of no longer being affected by “previous flaws”, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001423

    Original file (0001423.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01423 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized, entry-level separation be changed to reflect that he was honorably discharged for Convenience of the Government. The Medical Consultant further recommends that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03574

    Original file (BC-2003-03574.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, provided he meets the eligibility criteria for participation in the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP), on 4 November 2002, he elected to participate in that program rather than the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801976

    Original file (9801976.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01976 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his immediate reenlistment. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extend indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02257

    Original file (BC-2003-02257.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, provided he meets the eligibility criteria for participation in the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP), on 9 July 2002, he elected to participate in that program rather than the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02903

    Original file (BC-2002-02903.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received an RE code of 2C, which defined means “Involuntary separation with honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant found that no change to applicant’s record was warranted. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE verified that the RE code of 2C was correct. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03926

    Original file (BC-2002-03926.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 January 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s requests his Reenlistment Eligibility code 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103255

    Original file (0103255.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant's request on 26 Jan 89. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. A complete...