RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02193
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4E be upgraded to allow his
reenlistment.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received an honorable discharge and is now contemplating enlistment in
the Air Force Reserve or the Air National Guard; however, his RE code of 4E
is preventing him from doing so.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 August 1995 for a
period of four years.
On 12 June 1997, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Articles 92, 111, and 134.
Specifically, for being derelict in his duties by consuming alcohol on 17
May 1997, for possessing false identification, and for physically
controlling a vehicle while impaired. After consulting with military
counsel, he waived his right to trial by court-martial and accepted the
nonjudicial punishment. The commander considered his written presentation
and on 19 June 1997, determined that he did commit one or more of the
alleged offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the
grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 19 June 1997, 45 days of extra
duty, and a reprimand. He did not appeal the punishment.
On 23 July 1997, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 134. Specifically, for
wrongfully and falsely tamper with, by changing the date of birth, a
certain instrument purporting to be another member’s identification card in
words and figures as follows: from 26 July 1977 to 28 March 1976. After
consulting with military counsel, he waived his right to trial by court-
martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment. The commander considered
his written presentation and on 4 August 1997, determined that he did
commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture
of $500.00 pay per month for two months; however, it was suspended until
1 February 1998. He did not appeal the punishment.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 August 1999 under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), and
issued an RE Code of 4E. He completed four years of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the RE code the applicant received is correct. He has not satisfactorily
indicated the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force
policy.
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 18 October 2002 for review and response within 30 days. However, 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 to warrant upgrading the applicant’s RE
Code. After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and
noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or
injustice. In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with
the governing instruction in effect at the time of his separation. The
applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was
inappropriate. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate
standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing
record.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-02193 in
Executive Session on 7 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01763
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01763 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 131.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank be changed from airman basic to airman first class. The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. The evidence of record reflects that the...
The discharge complied with directives in effect at the time and records indicate his military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who shared his barracks. DOUGLAS...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-04028 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 4E to 1J. We agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the RE code which was assigned at the time of his separation accurately reflects the...
In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03426
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03426 INDEX CODE: 112.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4E be changed to a code that will enable him to reenlist and that his grade of senior airman (SrA/E-4) be reinstated. The applicant’s assigned RE code of 4E accurately reflects that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02857 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment code (RE) be changed to allow her to join the Air Force Reserve. The applicant’s commander notified her on 6 July 1989, that he was not recommending her for promotion because she received an Article...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02803
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-02803 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “4E” (Grade is airman first class (A1C) or below and airman completed 31 or more months, if a first-term airman) be changed to one that will allow enlistment in the Air National Guard (ANG)....
However, if the Board decides to promote the applicant to SRA, then the RE code should be changed to “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate). In an earlier case, the applicant requested that two Article 15s be removed from his records. With the removal of the Article 15s and his promotion to SRA, the “4E” code he received is no longer correct.
AF | BCMR | CY1997 | BC 1997 03613
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. He was demoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) based on his own decisions and actions and was given an RE code that reflected these...