RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02708
INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would
allow him to return to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The finding of a re-entry code of 2Q was an error and his medical
condition was mis-diagnosed. He states that he is fit for military
service and he has matured since his discharge from the Air Force.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a
copy of a letter from Congressman John Boozman, a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and a copy
of his educational evaluation from a private physician. Applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D and E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The applicant was
diagnosed with Cyclothymic Disorder while on active duty that was
determined to have existed for many years prior to service requiring
psychiatric hospitalization on 2 occasions prior to service, and twice
while on active duty. This disorder is disqualifying both for entry
and continued military service. Action and disposition in this case
are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force
directives that implement the law. The Medical Consultant’s
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. Although the applicant submitted a
statement expressing remorse for his misconduct, he did not submit any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing. He provided no other facts warranting an
upgrade of the discharge. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. The applicant’s RE code is correct.
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the advisory and states that he is willing
to undergo a physical and psychological evaluation to determine if he
is fit for duty. He currently serves as a manager for a large company
and would like the opportunity to use his abilities to serve his
country.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice in regard to his request that
his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. After a thorough
review of the documentation provided in support of his appeal and the
evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned to
the applicant was proper and in compliance with the appropriate
directives. Applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead
us to believe otherwise. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend a change in his RE
code.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2002-
02708 in Executive Session on 26 March 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Oct 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Feb 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02903
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended denial. ...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02198
It appears that she is requesting administrative corrections be made to her medical records and discharge documents. She submitted a hardship letter requesting that she be assigned to a different location or separated so that she could later reenlist. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-00872
However, should the AFBCMR determine the medical condition warrants a disability discharge with severance pay, the appropriate RE code would be “2Q - Personnel medically retired or discharged.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 January 2004 for review and response within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03773
On 7 Oct 68, the Air Force Personnel Board concurred with the findings and recommendations of the PEB and directed his retirement effective 1 Nov 68. Subsequent to an AF/JAA ruling clarifying the crediting of retiring personnel with at least 19 years and 6 months of service prior to 1 Jan 82, his request was re-evaluated and he was granted CRSC compensation for his impaired hearing rated at 20%. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Nov 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00545
After the review the IPEB determined his PTSD rendered him unfit for further service and recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable percentage of 50 percent. The applicant did not concur with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal PEB (FPEB). The Medical Consultant states the preponderance of the record supports the PEB rating of 50 percent for his PTSD.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03642
The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E. ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00975 INDEX CODE: 108.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting that item 11C of his DD Form 214, be changed to reflect medical disability rather than physical disability. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...