ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01985
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Applicant requests the reenlistment eligibility code (RE) 2X be
changed to 1A to allow him to continue his military career.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the contested time period, the applicant was serving in the
Regular Air Force, in the grade on master sergeant.
Applicant was denied reenlistment on 17 Dec 97. The Secretary of the
Air Force denied his appeal to the nonselection for reenlistment on
24 Aug 98. He was discharged on 27 Oct 98 after serving 16 years, 2
months and 5 days total active service and given a RE code of 2X.
On 30 August 2001, the applicant’s request for the enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out 31 August 1997, 31 August
1996, and 31 March 1995 be removed; the denial of reenlistment be
nullified and he be given full credit for the time since his forced
separation toward retirement, with back pay and allowances was
considered and denied by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at
Exhibit K.
On 9 April 2003, the applicant now request his RE code of 2X be
changed to 1A to allow him to continue his military career. In
support of his request, he provides a personal statement, a copy of
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal
from the Armed Forces of the United States and copies of his previous
supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission is at
Exhibit L.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice that would warrant an upgrade of
his RE code. After a thorough review of the record, we see no
evidence of an error in this case and remain unpersuaded that he has
been the victim of an injustice. At the time he was discharged from
the Air Force, he was furnished an RE code of 2X which was predicated
upon the quality of his service and the circumstances of his
discharge. We are not persuaded by the evidence provided in support
of his appeal that the corresponding RE code was improper or unjust;
or, that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted. In view of the
foregoing, we find no basis favorably consider this request.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 00-01985
in Executive Session on 12 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. Lawrence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit K. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Sept 01,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit L. Applicant’s Letter, dated 9 Apr 03, with
attachments.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099
In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00095 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code of 2x “first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) be changed to a code that will permit him to reenter...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00656
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00656 INDEX CODE: 112.10 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code of “2X” which denotes "First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP" be changed to reentry code “1A” which denotes "Ineligible to reenlist, but condition...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response, within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00356 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2X and his separation code “KBK” be changed in order for him to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve. The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 98-00114 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES AU9 r-1 898 Applicant requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be deleted. The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000.03350
3A031 – Information Management Apprentice, 9 mos On 14 Aug 99, he was honorably discharged, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), and was issued an RE code of 4G (No AFSC awarded that is commensurate with grade). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that he did not realize he had been reassigned to AFSC 3A031,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
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 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
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 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...