RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02938
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 enlist in the Air National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not expect to be separated from the Air Force for failing a
couple of tests. He feels that he deserves a second chance and would
like to serve in the Air National Guard.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a
letter from his parents, a letter from DeVry University, and a letter
from a Texas Air National Guard Recruiter.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 February 2002
for a term of 4 years.
On 17 May 2002, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend
that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Entry-Level Performance
and Conduct). The reason for this action was that he failed to make a
passing score on required training. He scored 50% and 48% and the
required passing score was 70%. He also failed to qualify on the
M16A2 weapon. He scored 10 and the passing score was 25.
Additionally, he failed to show for mandatory retesting on 22 April
and 3 May 2002. He was advised of his rights in this matter and
acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date. He
elected to waive his right to consult counsel. In a legal review of
the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case
legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged without
probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority concurred with
the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with an entry-
level separation. He served 5 months and 17 days on active duty and
was issued an RE code of “2C.”
_____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Airmen are given entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is
initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.
Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in
accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions. An
entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as
negative and should not be confused with other types of separation.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. Based on the review of his case file,
his RE code 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:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 28 Feb 03, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 not timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. Evidence has not been provided in
support of his appeal, which would lead us to believe that a change to
his RE code is warranted. It is our opinion, that his uncharacterized
character of service was proper and in compliance with governing
directives. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence
of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES 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-
02938 in Executive Session on 9 April 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 02 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Feb 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01689
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01689 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to join the Armed Forces. In support of her request, the applicant submitted a personal statement, and a letter of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03011 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. DoD has determined that it would be unfair to the applicant and the service if the limited service of the airman were characterized. (Exhibit D) HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirms that the RE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03011 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. DoD has determined that it would be unfair to the applicant and the service if the limited service of the airman were characterized. (Exhibit D) HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirms that the RE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02947
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02947 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to enlist in the Air National Guard. She served 3 months and 8 days on active duty and was issued an RE code of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04109
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02769
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 15 August 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Entry-Level Performance and Conduct), and received an uncharacterized entry-level separation. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03336
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 22 March 2000, 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. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 02, w/atchs....
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00910
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00455
Toward the end of basic training, he received orders. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 9 June 1994, after serving 3 months and 29 days active service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 June 1994, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01890
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Jul 03. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.