Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02951
Original file (BC-2002-02951.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02951
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of  “2B”,  separated  with  a
general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,
be changed to one that will allow her reentry into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a model airman while in the  Air  Force  and  would  like  to
return to the Air Force as soon as possible.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 22 Apr 98.  On 12 Jul  00,
the applicant was notified by her squadron commander that he intended
to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for disobeying a direct
order  to  take  the  Anthrax  Vaccination,  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.  The applicant consulted counsel and
submitted a statement on her behalf.  On  18 Jul 00, the  applicant’s
squadron  commander  recommended  to  the  Wing  Commander  that  the
applicant be discharged from service with a general discharge without
the opportunity for probation and  rehabilitation.   The  Wing  Staff
Judge Advocate reviewed the discharge action  against  the  applicant
and found it to be legally  sufficient.   On  18  Jul  00,  the  Wing
Commander directed that the applicant be discharged  with  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.   The  applicant  was
discharged from service on 24 Jul 00.

The applicant received on enlisted performance report  while  in  the
Air Force with an overall rating of “5.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.    The
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.   She  provided
no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s records and found the RE code  of
“2B” to be correct.

The complete 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 Dec 02 for review and comment  within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been
the victim of an error  or  injustice.   The  Board  notes  that  the
applicant  was  discharged  for  her  refusal  to  take  the  Anthrax
immunization.  She does not indicate in her application that  if  she
returned to active duty, she will comply with the legal  requirements
levied upon her.  In the absence of such a commitment, to  allow  her
return to active duty would not be in her or  the  Air  Force’s  best
interest.  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 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  02-02951
in Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPRRS, dated 8 October 2002.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03841

    Original file (BC-2002-03841.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received records of counseling on six occasions (11 Aug 82, 5 and 6 Jan 83, 4 May 83, and 10 and 11 May 83) for failure to meet AFR 39-6 Responsibilities. After reviewing the evidence of record, the applicant’s overall quality of service and the events which precipitated his separation from the Air Force, we find no evidence to indicate that either the assigned separation code or the RE code are in error or unjust. ___________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02986

    Original file (BC-2002-02986.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02986 INDEX NUMBER: 112.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The period of lost time, 14 Sep 01 through 2 Nov 01 reflected on her DD Form 214 be removed. Her commander at the time she separated from service indicated on an AF Form 2098 that the period from 14 Sep 01...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01945

    Original file (BC-2005-01945.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Wing commander recommended to the NAF commander the applicant’s request be denied. On 2 Jun 04, the MajCom DP recommended to AFPC that the applicant’s retirement request be denied and that he be discharged with a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A copy of the memorandum prepared by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) after considering and recommending denial of the applicant’s request for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01023

    Original file (BC-2002-01023.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01023 INDEX CODE: 112.10 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) and her separation codes be changed to enable her to re-enter the Air Force. On 31 July 2001, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02417

    Original file (BC-2005-02417.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 02417 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703351

    Original file (9703351.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 November 1995, applicant was notified of her squadron section commander's intent to recommend her for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. The squadron section commander advised applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. Copies of the letters are attached at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 1. law or regulations.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03891

    Original file (BC-2002-03891.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03891 INDEX NUMBER: 112.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The extension of her enlistment she entered into on 13 Dec 01 be corrected to reflect inclusive dates of 5 Jul 04 to 4 Jan 05. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02510

    Original file (BC-2002-02510.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02510 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 1J so that he may serve in the Air National Guard. He was discharged on 21 Jul 00 and issued an RE code of "2C.". ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03877

    Original file (BC-2003-03877.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a letter from his squadron commander to the wing staff judge advocate, dated 25 Jun 01, outlining why the applicant did not meet retention requirements. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03102

    Original file (BC-2005-03102.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After consideration of the applicant’s statement, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the wing commander the applicant be discharged for the reasons stated above, that he be given a general discharge, and that he not be given probation and rehabilitation. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. While we note that the applicant received favorable ratings on the last EPR he received, we also note...